Full text of "The Irish Free State And Its Senate A Study In Contemporary Politics"

See other formats

THE IRISH FREE STATE
AND ITS SENATE

A Study in Contemporary Politics
by

DONAL O’SULLIVAN

FABER AND FABER LIMITED
24 Russell Square
London

FIRST PUBLISHED IN SEPTEMBER MCMXL
BY FABER AND FABER LIMITED
24 RUSSELL SQUARE, LONDON, W.C.l
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
WESTERN PRINTING SERVICES LTD., BRISTOL
ALL RIGHTS RESERVBD

MY WIFE

‘Whether we are of an ancient Irish descent, or of later Irish birth,
we are united in one people, and we are bound by one lofty obligation
to complete the building of our common nation.’

Alice Stopford Green, ‘Message to the Senate’.

‘Quis nescitprimam esse historiae legem, ne quid falsi dicere audeat?
deinde ne quid veri non audeat?’

Cicero, De Oratore, II, 15.

PREFACE

Although the Irish Free State as such lasted for only fifteen years,
the period is one more filled with incident than any other comparable
period of Irish history. For almost the whole of that time it was
governed under a bicameral system, in which the Senate played a not
inconsiderable part ; and as the Clerk of that House I was privileged
to view the political arena from a position of intimate detachment.
When, therefore, both the original Senate and the Irish Free State
were successively brought to an end, I decided to compile a record in
which the history of the Second Chamber and of the State itself should
be combined, to serve as a chronicle of the past, and also, it may be,
as a guide for the future. This book is the result.

A word is called for regarding the general plan. After an introduc-
tion to the period, the general history and the history of the Senate
are dealt with, so far as possible, pari passu , the Senate triennial periods
being adopted for this purpose as a convenient, if arbitrary, division.
There follows a review of the constitutional changes brought about
after the legislature had been reduced to a single chamber, and some
chapters dealing with subjects of special interest to the student of
parliamentary institutions. Finally, some account is given of the prin-
cipal events from the promulgation of the Constitution of 1937 down
to the outbreak of the present European War.

The path of any writer of contemporary history is beset by pitfalls,
all of which I can hardly hope to have avoided. But it has been my
endeavour throughout to produce an objective record, based exclu-
sively on documentary materials, such as the published debates of
both Houses of the legislature, Parliamentary Reports of various
kinds, and contemporary newspapers. I have not thought it either
necessary or desirable wholly to suppress my personal opinions, which
are, indeed, strongly held ; but neither do I desire to obtrude them
on the reader, who can judge for himself whether or not they are
sustained by the evidence.

As the subject breaks virtually new ground, my obligations are

xii PREFACE

naturally few. I have, however, derived much profit from a study of
the quarterly articles in which the Irish correspondent of the Round
Table has, for the last fifteen years, presented a vivid, accurate, and
impartial account of the contemporary Irish scene.

In conclusion, I wish to tender my sincere thanks to Mr. J. C.
Jennett, of the staff" of Messrs. Faber & Faber, for the care with
which he has seen the book through the press.

Donal O’Sullivan

Cairn Hill

Foxrock

County Dublin

Saint Patrick's Day, 1940

CONTENTS

PREFACE
INTRODUCTION

PART I. THE YEARS PRIOR TO THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF THE IRISH FREE STATE

Chapter I. THE PRELUDE TO THE ANGLO-IRISH TREATY
OF 1921 page 31

Constitutional agitation for self-government — Government of Ireland
Bill, 1912 — Limited powers thereunder — Proposals for a Senate —
Gaelic League and Gaelic Athletic Association — Arthur Griffith and
Sinn Fdin — Irish Republican Brotherhood — Hostility of Ulster to Bill
of 1912 — Ulster Volunteers — Irish Volunteers — Danger of civil war —
Outbreak of Great War — John Redmond's declaration — Postponement
of Government of Ireland Act — Split in Irish Volunteers — Irish Re-
publican Brotherhood decide on insurrection — Easter Week, 1916 —
Executions and aftermath — Casement's speech from the dock — Irish
Convention set up — Mr. De Valera's victory in Clare election and atti-
tude to Ulster — Elected President of Sinn Fein and of Irish Volunteers
—Death of Redmond— Report of Irish Convention — Composition and
powers of proposed Senate — Threat of conscription — Ruin of parlia-
mentarianism — ‘ German Plot' — General election of December 1918 —
Triumph of Sinn Fdin — Establishment of Dail Fireann and Declaration
of Independence — Irish Republican Army — Anglo-Irish War — Govern-
ment of Ireland Act, 1920, and Partition — General elections of May
1921 — Truce of July 1921 — Correspondence between Mr. De Valera
and Mr. Lloyd George — Signature of Anglo-Irish Treaty.

Chapter II. THE FIGHT FOR THE TREATY page 48

Popular enthusiasm for the Treaty — Attitude of Catholic Hierarchy
— Procedure for establishment of Provisional Government — Mr. De

xiii

page xi
page 1

xiv CONTENTS

Valera declares against the Treaty— The Treaty before the Dail—
‘ Document No. 2'— Griffith's declaration— The Dail approves the
Treaty— Mr. De Valera's resignation and subsequent attitude —
Provisional Government set up— Telegrams from the Pope— The
British begin evacuation— Outbreaks of violence — Mr. De Valera's
efforts to avoid an appeal to the people — His speeches in Munster —
—Repudiation of the Dail by a section of the Irish Republican Army
— Seizure of the Four Courts — Pronouncement of the Catholic Hier-
archy — Mr. De Valera's contrary view — Continued efforts to prevent
a decision by the people — The Collins-De Valera Pact — The general
election of June 1922— The people declare for the Treaty — Civil War —
Death of Griffith and Collins— Stem condemnation of the Irregulars by
the Hierarchy — Mr. De Valera appointed 1 President of the Republic ' —
Resolution of approval of the Treaty purported to be rescinded — Deci-
sion not to appeal to Rome against the Hierarchy — The Pope's message
to the Governor-General.

Chapter III . DRAFTING THE CONSTITUTION page 68

Appointment of the Constitution Committee — Its personnel— Three
separate Drafts — Unanimity on question of bicameral system — Powers
of Second Chamber — Negotiations with the British Government on the
draft proposals — Views of Kevin O' Higgins and others on the subse-
quent agreement — Arthur Griffith and the minority — Problem of the
Southern Unionists — Griffith's interview with representatives of the
minority — Their character and standing — Their subsequent interviews
with Mr. Lloyd George and Griffith — Undertakings given — Formal
negotiations begun — Griffith's identity of view with Kevin O'Higgins
— Main points of contention — The Heads of Agreement — Union-
ist dissatisfaction with character of Senate — Circumstances precluding
further concessions — Publication of the Draft Constitution.

Chapter IV. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SENATE

page 83

CONTENTS xv

power — Joint sitting — Referendum — Initiation of Bills — Senators ex-
cluded from Executive Council — Extern Ministers — Miscellaneous
provisions — The thirty nominated members— Analysis and commentary
— Lack of legal representation — The thirty elected members — Circum-
stances of the election — Commentary on personnel — Representative
character of first Senate — Number of Catholics and non-Catholics.

PART n. THE FIRST TRIENNIAL PERIOD
6th DECEMBER 1922 TO 5th DECEMBER 1925

Chapter V. THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR page 99

Tactics of the Irregulars — Mr. De Valera's association with them —
Outrages against members of the Dail — Execution of imprisoned Irregu-
lar leaders — Mr. De Valera's Christmas Message — Campaign of inti-
midation, kidnapping, and arson against Senators — Sabotage and mur-
der — Condemnation by Cardinal Logue and the Hierarchy — The begin-
ning of the end — The Leader of the Parliamentary Opposition denounces
the attack upon society — The * Cease Fire' order— Senators Jameson
and Douglas as intermediaries — The Government's peace conditions —
Rejection of Mr. De Valera's alternative proposals— The end of the
Civil War.

Chapter VI. RELATIONS OF SENATE AND DAlL page 116

The Senate's first meeting — Election of Chairman and Vice-Chair-
man — Absence of party system — The Senate's conception of its duties
— ■ Irish language and cultural activities — Relations with Government
and Dail— No leader of the House — Administrative difficulties — No
Parliamentary Questions — Legislative congestion — Defence Forces Bill
— Land Bill — Suspension of the Intoxicating Liquor Bill— A flaw in the
Constitution — Public Safety Bill — Attitude of the Senate — Habeas
Corpus case — Constitutional difficulty over referendum provision — Mr.
De Valera and titles to land — The dissolution — Mr. Cosgrove's tribute
to the Senate — The general election of August 1923.

Chapter VII. BUILDING THE NEW STATE page 134

xvi ' CONTENTS

for the improvement of agriculture, fisheries, and housing— -Defence of
the State and of society— The Republican Government and Army-
Repudiation of the National Loan — Statistics of lawlessness The
Cove outrage — Remedial measures and their success Statesmanship
of Kevin O' Higgins— The Government's internal troubles— Ministerial
changes— The stillborn National Party— Restoration of stable condi-
tions.

Chapter VIII. THE WORK OF THE SENATE, 1923-5

page 144

Re-election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman — Co-option of Mr.
S. L. Brown, K.C.— Value of Senate's work of revision— Attitude to
measures for restoration of order — Continuance of unsatisfactory rela-
tions with the Dail—New procedure for removal of deadlock by con-
ference — Instances of its application — Money amendments in non-
Money Bills — Salaries of the District Justices — Decision on the
Senate's power of amendment — The First Triennial Election — Defects
of the system — Minor constitutional amendments — Conduct of the
Triennial Election — Analysis of the result — Work done in First Trien-
nial Period.

Chapter IX. THE SENATE CASKET page 157

Alice Stopford Green — Nature arid purpose of her gift — The remark-
able message which accompanied it — Acceptance by the Senate —
Strict fulfilment of the conditions prescribed — Ultimate destination of
the Casket and its contents.

Chapter X. THE DIVORCE CONTROVERSY page 161

The law prior to the establishment of the Irish Free State— Limited
jurisdiction of the Irish Courts — Contrast with English law — Procedure
for divorce by promotion of Private Bill — The changed position caused
' by the Treaty and Constitution — Joint Standing Orders for Private
Bills— The procedure summarized— Lodgement of Divorce Bills—
Absence of special provision in Standing Orders and reasons therefor —
Report of Joint Committee — An unsatisfactory position — Mr. Cos-
grave s motion in the Dail—Lord Glenavy's adverse ruling in the Senate
Senator Douglas's motion for removal of deadlock— Senator W. B.
Yeats's unfortunate speech— Senator Douglas's position explained—

CONTENTS xvii

The Ddil rejects the Senate's proposal— Mr. Cosgrave's reasons — The
Senate resolution rescinded— The problem unsolved— Misrepresenta-
tion of the Senate’s attitude — Effect on the First Triennial Election.

PART III. THE SECOND TRIENNIAL PERIOD
6th DECEMBER 1925 TO 5th DECEMBER 1928

Chapter XI. POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS, 1925-7

page 175

Boundary provisions of the Treaty— The Boundary Commission—
The Morning Post forecast — Crisis precipitated — Resignation of Dr.
MacNeill — Tripartite agreement signed in London — Its provisions —
The Coimcil of Ireland — Mr. Cosgrove's attitude — Fruitful personal
contact between leaders of North and South — A hopeful augury unful-
filled— Mr. De Valera's views — Political groupings— Elements of im-
permanence — Formation of Claim Bireann — Dissensions between
Ministers on tariff issue — Captain Redmond founds the National
League — The Irish Republican Army repudiates the Republican
Government — Mr. De Valera's proposal to Sinn Fein — His attitude
to the parliamentary Oath — Sinn Fdin votes against his policy —
Formation of Fianna Fail— Legislative activity — The Government's
external policy — Diplomatic status — The League of Nations — The
Imperial Conference of 1926 — Outrages by the Irish Republican Army
— Public Safety Bill— Kevin O' Higgins and the licensed trade — The
general election campaign — Political parties — The proposals of the
Irish Republican Army — The parties of the Right — Issues before the
electors — The parliamentary Oath — Ambiguous attitude of Fianna
Fail— Result of the general election of June 1927 — Mr. De Valera's
legal opinion on the Oath — Fianna Fail members attempt to take their
seats — Mr. De Valera’s pledge not to take the Oath — Mr. Cosgrove
on the sanctity of international agreements — The new Administration
— Assassination of Kevin O' Higgins.

Chapter XII. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SENATE

page 197

Contested elections for the Chair and Vice-Chair — Rushing of Bill to
confirm Boundary Agreement — Senators' opinions on the Agreement —
Lord Glenavy’s acceptance of the closure — Continued hasty legislation
— Ineffective protests — The Ultimate Financial Settlement — Attitude
b *

xviii CONTENTS

of Minister for Finance to the Senate— Virtual abolition of Extern
Ministers— Effort to abolish Senatorial disqualification for Executive
Council — The question considered in Select Committee — Views of
Kevin O'Higgins— Request for a Joint Committee— Refusal of the
Government— Continued opposition of Kevin O' Higgins — Major Bryan
Cooper states the practice elsewhere — The Senate's reaction to the
refusal— The Juries Bill— Senator Brown and the case for women
jurors— The Intoxicating Liquor Bill— The work of revision summarized
— Tributes to the dead Vice-President— His funeral.

Chapter XIII. MR. DE VALERA ENTERS THE DAIL

page 214

Emergency legislation demanded by the assassination — The Public
Safety Bill — The Electoral Amendment Bill — Amendment of Constitu-
tion regarding referendum and initiative — Mr. De Valera's dilemma —
Fianna Fail enter the Dail and subscribe the Oath — Preparations for
referendum on Electoral Amendment Bill not proceeded with — Mr. De
Valera's arrangement with Labour Party and National League — The
motion of no confidence — Revolt of Mr. Vincent Rice, K.C. — The
Jinks episode — The motion defeated by casting vote of the Chair — The
dissolution — The election campaign — Rival policies — Mr. De Valera's
moderation — Major Bryan Cooper joins the Government party — Re-
sult of the general election of September 1927 — The new Administration
— Fianna Fail and the legitimacy of the State — Mr. De Valera and the
right of the Republican Government and Army to claim continuity — The
Leader of the Labour Party on Mr. De Valera's attitude— Attempted
presentation of a petition for a referendum to abolish the Oath — The
Government replies with a Bill to abolish the referendum and the initia-
tive — Criticism of the Government's action — Passage of the Bill by the
Dail.

Chapter XIV. THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE SENATE

page 231

CONTENTS xix

tions— Altered system of election — Minimum age and term -of office
reduced — Power of suspension increased— Opposition to certain of the
proposed changes — Senator O' Farrell's brilliant speeches — Views of
other Senators — The Second Triennial Election — Failure of the new
system — Result of the election — The entry of Fiarna Fail— Influx of
ex-members of the Dail into the Senate — The work of revision sum-
marized— Retirement of Lord Glenavy — Tributes to his conduct of the
Chair — His qualities and defects — His death.

PART IV. THE THIRD TRIENNIAL PERIOD
6th DECEMBER 1928 TO 5th DECEMBER 1931

Chapter XV. INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND
INTERNAL DISORDER page 249

Growth of international status — The Briand-Kellogg Pact — Fianna
Fail opposition in both Houses — The signature of the Optional Clause
— Senator Connolly’s views — Election to the Council of the League of
Nations — Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation, 1929
— The Imperial Conference, 1930 — Report of the Conference approved
by Senate and Dail — The Statute of Westminster, 1931 — Attitude of
the Churchill group in the House of Commons — Mr. Cosgrove's caveat
— Mr. Baldwin resists the amendment of the Churchill group — Result
of the Statute of Westminster — The internal situation — Repeal of the
Public Safety Act — Growth of extremism — Intimidation of jurors and
witnesses — Murder and attempted murder — Attitude of Fianna Fail to
majority rule — A 1 Dail of usurpers' — The Juries Protection Bill, 1929
— Opposition of Fianna Fail— The grave events of 1931 — Association
of Fianna Fail with Irish Republican Army — London newspaper inter-
view with Republican leader — Introduction of the Constitution {Amend-
ment No. 17) Bill — Its drastic character — Opposition of Fianna Fail —
Mr. De Valera's reference to the Irish Republican Army — His theory of
the continuity of British government in Ireland— His misquotation of
Lord Birkenhead— The Bill becomes law — Joint Pastoral of the
Hierarchy— The Irish Republican Army and other bodies declared to
be unlawful associations — Establishment of the Military Tribimal.

Chapter XVI. PARTY POLITICS AND THE SENATE

page 266

Gradual growth of a party system — Formation of a Government
party — Political alignments — Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman

xx CONTENTS

—Bill to make Senators eligible for the Executive Council— Mr.
Cosgrave's half-hearted advocacy— Amendment carried limiting Senate
to one member of the Council — Opposition in the Dail Fiantta Fail
abuse of the Senate— Senator O'Farrell on the Bill— Change in the
method of filling casual vacancies— The Seanad Bye-Elections Bill-
Period for constitutional amendments without a referendum extended
from eight to sixteen years— Absence of party rigidity— The Juries
Protection Bill— The Constitution {Amendment No. 17) Bill in the
Senate — Its passage under the guillotine — The Chairman's position —
The Third Triennial Election— Defects of the system again exemplified
—Result of the election— Increasing number of Senators of a political
type.

PART V. THE FOURTH TRIENNIAL PERIOD
6th DECEMBER 1931 TO 5th DECEMBER 1934

Chapter XVII. MR. DE VALERA TAKES OFFICE page 281

Reasons for early general election — The dissolution — The election
campaign — Government unpopularity — Humour and tragedy — Result
of the general election of February 1932 — New Chairman of the Dail —
Mr. De Valera in office — The new Administration — The Land Annui-
ties — Quarrel with the British Government — Abortive conversations in
Dublin and London — The Government defaults and the British retaliate
— Beginning of the economic war— No Anglo-Irish agreement at
Ottawa — The October Conference in London — Mr. De Valera's claims
— Deadlock — Patrick Hogan's courageous speech — Insults to the
Governor-General— His dismissal— Appointment of his successor —
The internal situation— Release of the prisoners— The Military Tribu-
nal at an end— Open drilling by the Irish Republican Army— The Wolfe
Tone demonstration — Immunity of extremists — Denial of free speech—
The Army Comrades Association— Boycott of British goods— Attitude
of the Government— Formation of the National Centre Party— Move-
ment for fusion with Mr. Cosgrave — The surprise dissolution.

Chapter XVIII. THE SENATE AND THE PARLIAMENTARY

page 301

Strength of parties— Absence of political animosities— Re-election
of Chairman and election of Vice-Chairman — Mr. De Valera attends
the Senate— His moderation and desire for friendship with Great.

CONTENTS xxi

Britain— Examination of his claim for a mandate to abolish the Oath—
The Constitution ( Removal of Oath) Bill— The legal and constitutional
standpoint— Provisions of the Treaty and Constitution— Objects of the
Bill— Mr. De Valera's election pledge — The Oath said not to be re-
quired by the Treaty — The argument on which this contention is based
— Analogy with Canada — The argument from the Statute of West-
minster — Reticence of the Government lawyers — Inconsistent argu-
ments— Powers of the judiciary — Opinions of judges of the Supreme
Court — The Bill in the Senate — The Senate insists on prior agreement
with Great Britain — Senator Douglas and the forms common to mem-
bers of the Commonwealth — Senator Connolly's views — Speeches of
Senators Brown and O' Farrell — The D&il disagrees and the Bill is sus-
pended — The Senate's forbearance in regard to other measures — The
Army Pensions Bill — The Emergency Imposition of Duties Bill — The
work of revision summarized— Absence of obstructive tactics.

Chapter XIX. THE BLUE SHIRTS AND THE IRISH RE-
PUBLICAN ARMY page 319

The election campaign — Mr. De Valera's policy — Programmes of
the other parties — Class issues — 'No free speech for traitors' — The
Army Comrades Association ensures a free election — Mr. Cosgrove's
escort of military and police— Result of the general election of
January 1933 — Mr. De Valera's decisive victory — The figures examined
— The mandate exceeded— Hope of the Government Chief Whip —
Cardinal MacRory and England — Ministerial changes — The Oath Bill
again sent to the Senate — Second Reading declined — The Bill becomes
law — Other Bills amending the Constitution — Abolition of Privy
Council appeals— Attitude of the British Government — Mr. De Valera's
rejoinder in the Senate — Progress of the economic war — Plans for in-
dustrialization — The internal situation — Recruiting for the Irish Re-
publican Army — Extremist activities — The Army Comrades Associa-
tion adopts the blue shirt uniform — General O' Duffy's dismissal — The
Army ' Comrades Association becomes the National Guard — General
O'Duffy elected leader— Aims of the new organization— All firearms
licences revoked— Mr. De Valera denounces the National Guard— He
contrasts it with the Irish Republican Army — Mr. De Valera's virtual
dictatorship— His attitude to political opponents— Banning of proposed
parade of the National Guard— Recruitment into the police of ex-
members of the Irish Republican Army — Sir John Keane's motion in
the Senate — The National Guard proclaimed an unlawful association —

xxii CONTENTS

The Military Tribunal re-established— Inconsistency of the Govern-
ment-Formation of the United Ireland Party — The National Guard
becomes the Young Ireland Association— Its policy— The Waterford
farmers— The ‘ Boycott Bass’ campaign— Outrages against the United
Ireland Party— Forbearance of its members— Domiciliary visits by the
police— The Young Ireland Association proclaimed an unlawful associa-
tion — Th e Young Ireland Association becomes the League of Youth —
Legal reverses for the Government — Mr. De Valera pleads with the
extremists — The Dundalk bomb affair — Rioting in Drogheda — Mr.
De Valera’s difficulties— Introduction of the Wearing of Uniform
( Restriction ) Bill— Its passage by the Dail under the guillotine.

Chapter XX. TENSION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND
SENATE page 345

The Agricultural Produce ( Cereals ) Bill— Points of constitutional
interest — A spate of legislation — Difficulty of revision — Cordial rela-
tions with Ministers — The Damage to Property ( Compensation ) Bill —
Senator O' Farrell’s sardonic comment — Resistance to pay-cut of Civic
Guards— Bills rejected— The Local Government ( Dublin ) Bill— The
Local Government ( Extension of Franchise) Bill — Object of these
measures — Their ultimate enactment — Proposed reduction of the
Senate’s suspensory power to three months — Mr. De Valera on the
Second Chamber — His real intentions — The Senate’s attitude to the
Bill— Senator Douglas's able speech — Request for a Joint Committee
— The request ignored — The Bill sent up again — Its rejection — Failure
to enact it — Mr. De Valera's reliance on the Draft Constitutions of
1922 — His error exposed by Senator Douglas — The wireless account —
Elections to casual vacancies— Duly authorized visitors to the Senate
refused admission by order of the Minister for Defence— His explana-
tion— Reference to Committee of Privileges— The Committee reports a
breach of privilege— The Report approved by the Senate— Amendment
of the Defence Forces Bill— The Senate’s action misunderstood— At-
tack by the Minister for Defence— An embittered atmosphere— The
Wearing of Uniform ( Restriction ) Bill before the Senate — Arguments
of the Minister for Justice— Attitude of independent Senators— The
constitutional aspect — Mr. De Valera’s passionate speech — Admitted
impossibility of a general election— The Senate rejects the Bill— Subse-
quent failure to take steps for its enactment — Mr. De Valera introduces
a Bill to abolish the Senate.

CONTENTS xxiii

Chapter XXL THE BILL TO ABOLISH THE SENATE

. page 363

Mr. De Valera's object — The Agreement with the Southern Union-
ists— Suggestion of a general amendment of the Constitution— Possi-
bility of a new Constitution — Effect of the Senate Abolition Bill-
Absence of safeguards — The judges and the Auditor-General— Mr. De
Valera's general attitude to Second Chambers — His explanation of his
mandate — Refusal of a Joint Committee — His case for the Bill — The
onus placed on his opponents — The argument from experience of the
existing Senate — Its alleged subservience to Mr. Cosgrave and opposi-
tion to Mr. De Valera — The argument from political theory — Methods
of constituting Second Chambers impracticable or dangerous — The
argument from history — Bicameralism an historical accident — Attack
on Second Chambers of the United Kingdom, Canada, France — The
United States — The Norwegian system — Examples from history —
Attack on England — The Bill in the Senate — Mr. De Valera's brief
opening — Guarantee of safeguards — The Chairman's speech — Instances
of misrepresentation — The argument from history refuted— France —
The United States — Citation of authoritative opinions — Detailed re-
view of Senate's work of revision — Its exercise of the suspensory power
— Comparison with Senates of Canada and South Africa — Allegation
of partiality refuted by facts — Errors in the text of the Bill— Counsel's
Opinion — Defence of the Independent Group — Peroration — Mr. De
Valera leaves the Senate — Senator Douglas's speech — Mr. De Valera's
use of J. S. Mill examined — The Norwegian system misunderstood —
Omissions in regard to France — Other speeches — Mr. De Valera's
reply to the debate — History jettisoned — His further reliance on J. S.
Mill— His attack on the Chairman — His error in regard to the Draft
Constitutions of 1922 — The Senate rejects the Bill.

Chapter XXII. MR. DE VALERA’S HISTORICAL

AUTHORITIES page 390

Mr. De Valera's controversial method — Earl Grey's' exact words ' —
Source of the quotation — Three variations of the text — Applicable
solely to the Australian colonies — Rendered out of date by 1859 — Dr.
Temperley's warning — Mr. De Valera's reference to Adams — The
Vice-Chairman's refutation as regards John Adams — His mention of
Samuel Adams — Mr. De Valera's belated explanation — The explana-
tion examined— Samuel Adams's views on bicameralism — Mr. De
Valera on the duties of Members of Parliament — His reliance on

xxiv CONTENTS

Franklin— The Vice-Chairman's refutation— Inquiries instituted in
Pennsylvania— The article in State Government— Mr. De Valera's
final words on Franklin— His use of the information obtained from
Pennsylvania.

Chapter XXIII. DISSENSIONS ON LEFT AND RIGHT

page 403

Schismatic tendency of Irish political parties— Placating the Re-
publicans— The Military Service Pensions Bill— The Volunteer Force
— Other factors weighing against extremism — The Vice-President
threatens physical force against the North — Republican dissensions —
Formation of the Republican Congress Party — Fracas at Wolfe Tone's
grave — Split in the Republican Congress Party — Outrages continue —
Misfortunes of the United Ireland Party — General O' Duffy's position —
The Corporate State — The Blue Shirts get out of hand — Professor
Hogan on General O' Duffy — Resignation of General O' Duffy and split
in the Blue Shirts.

Chapter XXIV. THE SENATE AND ELECTORAL CHANGE.

THE ARMED POLICE page 409

Senators and General O' Duffy — Senator Douglas's Bill to restore the
referendum for constitutional amendments — Passed by the Senate and
ignored by the Ddil — The Defence Forces Bill — Doubtful wisdom of the
Senate's action — The Bill to abolish university representation — The
Vice-President's reasons— The real object — The Electoral ( Revision of
Constituencies) Bill— Infringement of minority rights— The two Bills in
the Ddil— Attitude of the Senate — Senator Jameson's notable speech —
The Senate rejects the Bill to abolish university representation — Its
subsequent enactment— Amendments to the Electoral ( Revision ofCon-
■ stituencies) Bill— The Ddil disagrees— The Chairman of the Senate
gives his casting vote in favour of the Government — The Chairman's
difficult position— Unrest among the farmers— The armed police— The
' shooting at Cork Sale Yard — Senator Wilson's motion — Retirement of
the Government party from the House— The motion passed— The shoot-
ing justified by the Minister for Justice— Proceedings in the High Court
—Written judgement of Mr. Justice Hanna— His Lordship's findings
and conclusion— Confirmation by the Supreme Court on appeal— The
Fourth Triennial Election— Analysis of the result— The defeated Sena-
tors— Increase in number of ex-members of the Dail—The work of
revision summarized. J

CONTENTS xxv

PART VI. THE FIFTH TRIENNIAL PERIOD
6th DECEMBER 1934 TO 29th MAY 1936

Chapter XXV. THE WHEEL COMES FULL CIRCLE page 433

The United Ireland Party — Mr. Cosgrove elected chairman — Statis-
tics of convictions by the Military Tribunal— The Bishop of Cork on the
situation — The war in Abyssinia — Mr. De Valera's attitude at Geneva
— Criticism by Opposition leaders — Resignation of Mr. MacDermot —
General O' Duffy's policy — Death of King George V— Resolutions in
Dail and Senate — The Irish Republican Army — Murder of Mr. Richard
More O'Ferrall — Anti-Government demonstrations — Attempted inter-
ference in the Dublin tramways dispute — Ministers heavily guarded—
Mr. Dillon on the extremists — The rival factions — Melie at Wolfe
Tone's grave — The end of An Phoblacht — Interference with Mr. De
Valera's broadcast — Murder of Vice-Admiral Somerville — Condemna-
tion by the Bishop of Ross — Murder of John Egan — Michael Conway
sentenced and reprieved — The Irish Republican Army. proclaimed an
unlawful association — Imprisonment of its Chief of Staff— The wheel
comes full circle — Mr. De Valera's regrets.

Chapter XXVI. THE END OF THE SENATE page 446

xxvi CONTENTS

Brilliant speeches against the Bill— The motion carried— Split in the
Labour Party — The Senate’s message ignored by the Bail— A hand-to-
mouth existence — Possible reasons why validity of abolition not
challenged in the courts— Judgement of the Privy Council in Moore v.
Attorney-General— Judgement of the Supreme Court in Ryan v.
Lennon— Deterioration in Senate personnel— The Senate's final meet-
ing— Disposal of the Casket — Valedictory speeches— The Senate's
work summarized— The enactment motion in the Dail—Mr. De Valera
discloses his plan for a new Constitution— His speech in reply to the
debate — The Senate ceases to exist.

PART VII. SINGLE CHAMBER GOVERNMENT

Chapter XXVII. THE ABDICATION AND ‘EXTERNAL AS-
SOCIATION’ page 473

Death of Patrick Hogan — His statesmanlike qualities — Dissensions
in the United Ireland Party — Split in the League of Youth — The end of
the Blue Shirts — General O' Duffy in Spain — The Irish Christian Front
— Irish Republicans also in Spain — The Government adheres to non-
intervention — Return of General O' Duffy and his volunteers — Mr. De
Valera's defence policy — The Vice-President and partition — Constitu-
tional changes — The interview in the Philadelphia Record — The elec-
tion pledge in 1932 — The clearing of the groimd — The abdication of
King Edward VIII — The constitutional position — Action taken in the
several overseas Dominions — The British Act — Mr. De Valera's true
alternatives — Special meeting of the Bail— The Constitution ( Amend -
ment No. 27) Bill — Elimination of the Crow?i — Communication with
the British Government — Criticism by the Opposition — Errors in the
Bill — The guillotine falls — The Executive Authority ( External Rela-
tions) Bill— External association'— Views of the ex- Attorney-General
—Enactment of the Bill — The electors not consulted.

Chapter XXVIII. THE END OF THE IRISH FREE STATE

page 488

CONTENTS xxvii

closes his reason for abolishing the Senate — Unique features of the
Draft Constitution — Character of the State not designated — The posi-
tion of Northern Ireland — The President — Mr. P&draic Colum's criti-
cism — The Council of State — The Parliament — Composition and
powers of the Second Chamber — The referendum — ‘ External associa-
tion ' — Power to establish Special Courts — Declarations of a homiletic
character — Religion — Divorce — Mr. MacDermot and recognition of
membership of the British Commonwealth — Attitude of the Opposition
— Method of enacting the new Constitution — Submission to a plebiscite
— Mr. De Valera's reasons for the procedure — The sovereignty of the
people — Reason for no Constituent Assembly — Reason for plebiscite
on same day as general election — The general election of July 1937 —
Analysis of the result — Virtual elimination of Independents — Result of
the plebiscite — Slender majority for the new Constitution — The plebis-
cite considered on an all-Ireland basis — The end of the Irish Free
State.

PART Vin. CHAPTERS ON SPECIAL SUBJECTS

Chapter XXIX. ATTENDANCE AND PAYMENT OF
MEMBERS page 507

Constitutional provisions for payment of members — Resolution of the
Provisional Parliament — Resolutions of Senate and Dail — The Oireach-
tas ( Payment of Members ) Act, 1923 — The Amending Acts — Proposals
to reduce remuneration of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Senate —
Report of Select Committee — New scales adopted — Salaries of mem-
bers of the Government — Professor Thrift's Bill to reduce remuneration
of Senators — Joint Committee set up with extended terms of reference
■ — The Committee's Report — No action taken — Rejection of Professor
Thrift's Bill by the Ddil — Attendance of members of the two Houses
compared — Their different responsibilities — Average number of sitting
days of Senate and duration of sitting — Average attendance — In-
different individual records — Abortive proposals of Joint Committee —
Improvement after 1928 accompanied by deterioration in personnel —
Connection of payment of members with bad attendance — Problem of
the impecunious candidate — Inappropriateness of comparison with
overseas Dominions — Non-payment no barrier to Labour Senators —
The door closed to no legitimate interest.

xxviii CONTENTS

Chapter XXX. THE INITIATION OF LEGISLATION

page 519

Co-equal right of the Senate under the Constitution— Two ways in
which this right normally exercised elsewhere— Complex Government
Bills of a non-controversial type— Private Members ' Bills— No
Government Bills initiated in the Senate— Resultant clogging of the
legislative machine — Reasons for the Government's attitude — The
Industrial and Commercial Property ( Protection ) Bill — No Parliamen-
tary Draftsman — No power to pay witnesses' expenses — Fate of Senate
Bills in Bail— The Bill to restore the referendum ignored— The Town
Planning Bill— Its careful preparation — No consideration in Dail—
Similar treatment of other Bills — Peculiar effect of Article 39 of the
Constitution illustrated by history of the Wild Birds Protection Bill.

Chapter XXXI. DELEGATED LEGISLATION page 525

Meaning of the term — Remarkable growth of delegated legislation —
Statistics for the whole period— Bureaucratic invasion of parliamentary
rights — Often no retention of ultimate control — Four main classes in
which control retained— The First Class — The power of annulment —
Variations of the common form — Sub-division of the First Class —
Watchfulness of the Senate — Examples — The Censorship of Publica-
tions Bill — The Unemployment Assistance Bill — Attempts to exclude
the Senate from control — Incuriosity of legislators — Little attempted
use of power of annulment — The Second Class — A positive resolution
of approval required— The Courts of Justice Bill, 1923 — Struggle over
the Rules of Court — Lord Glenavy's ridicule — Senator Brown's amend-
ment — Government's attempt to secure hasty approval of the Rules —
The Senate's refusal — Disagreement with the Government over pro-
cedure— Anomalous position of the District Court Rules— The Rules of
the Circuit Court — The first set withdrawn — The second set also with-
drawn— The third set approved after five years— Advantages of positive
resolutions— Sub-divisions of the Second Class— The State Lands Act
The Control of Imports Act — Quota Orders — High level of debates
in Senate — The Third Class — Confirmation by statute — The Emer-
gency Imposition of Duties Act— Number of Orders thereunder— The
Fourth Class — Senate given a power of recommendation only — False
analogy with Money Bills — A point of constitutional interest — Sharp
controversy with the Government— Acceptance of the Senate amend-
ments — Subsequent rejection of the Senate point of view.

CONTENTS xxix

Chapter XXXII. MONEY BILLS page 544

Constitutional provisions regarding Money Bills— Indifferent draft-
ing of Article 38 — The Senate's interpretation of its functions— Form
of recommendations and procedure adopted— Beneficial results—
Educative Second Reading debates— The Finance Bill— The Appropria-
tion Bill— Three-day period for demanding a Committee of Privileges
found to be too short — Increase of the period to seven days — Other
constitutional changes— Total number of Money Bills— Statistics of
recommendations— Failure to pass the Ddil Supreme Court ( Pensions )
Bill— Government’s use of Senate's power of recommendation — Other
examples of its value to the Government — Special experience of Sena-
tors — Co-operation with the Ddil— A Senate recommendation accepted
by the Ddil against the Government — Effect of the change of Govern-
ment — The Import Duties Bill— Safeguards proposed by the Senate —
A Committee of Privileges demanded only once — Requisition by Ddil
members — The Land Purchase ( Guarantee Fund) Bill— Difficulties of
procedure — The Chbirman's three alternatives — His decision — Mr. De
Valera's accusation — The decision challenged by the Government party
— The ruling approved by the Senate Committee of Procedure — The
Committee's Report approved by the House— The Ddil requisition for
a Committee of Privileges — Representative character of the signatories
— Mr. De Valera’s attitude — The Ddil nominations to the Committee —
The Senate nominations — The case made by Senator Douglas — The
Committee’s decision — A considered judgement not required by the
Constitution — The Second Reading in the Senate — Senator Brown's
views — Recommendations made — Tactics of the Government party —
Constitutional requirements — The Bill returned to the Ddil— The re-
commendations rejected— An unpleasant episode.

Chapter XXXIII. FORMALITIES AND MACHINERY OF
PARLIAMENT page 559

✓ Centrifugal tendency of the Irish Free State — Divergencies of pro-
cedure as compared with the overseas Dominions — The practice else-
where — Summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament —
Parliamentary sessions — Advantages of the procedure — Constitutional
requirements of Article 24 — The Governor-General's Address to both
Houses, December 1922 and October 1923 — The Governor-General
never again visits Parliament — Unfortunate practical results — No
Debate on the Address — Absence of sessions — Consent of Senate to

XXX CONTENTS

conclusion of session first sought and then disregarded— Constitutional
amendments — No robes worn by the Chairman — Method of administer-
ing parliamentary Oath— Necessity for procedure in Ddil— Procedure
in Senate— The Ddil, not the Parliament, enumerated— Language pro-
visions— No formal intimation of Royal Assent to Bills— The Casket —
The opening prayer.

PART IX. EPILOGUE

EPILOGUE page 569

Attitude of other members of Commonwealth to new Constitution —
Position of Northern Ireland — Method of constituting Senate — Elec-
tion boycotted by Labour — Failure of the system — University members
— Nominated members — Method of electing President of Ireland—
Undesirability of contested election — Unopposed election of Dr. Doug-
las Hyde — His inauguration — Anglo-Irish negotiations — General elec-
tion in Northern Ireland— Exchanges between Lord Craigavon and Mr.
De Valera — The Agreements of April 1938 — The Agreement amending
the Treaty — The Financial Agreement — The Trade Agreement — Trans-
fer of the ports — The dissolution — Speeches by Mr. O' Kelly and Getieral
Mulcahy — Result of the general election of June 1938 — The Senate
election — Report of the Banking Commission — The Mimich crisis —
Campaign against partition — Mr. De Valera's plan — Conscription and
Northern Ireland — Attitude of Lord Craigavon — Mr. De Valera's pro-
test— Conscription of Irishmen in Great Britain — The ‘ Government of
the Republic' and the Irish Republican Army — Ultimatum to British
Government— Outrages in England— The Offences Against the State
Bill — Irish Republican Army declared an unlawful organization — Gov-
ernment attitude to bombing activities — British legislation — Military
Tribunal set up — The Coventry explosion — Its aftermath — Outbreak
of European War.

APPENDICES

A. Personnel of the Senate page 597

B. Tabular Statement of Bills (other than Money Bills)

RECEIVED FROM THE DAlL 605

C. List of Bills amended by the Senate

606

CONTENTS xxxi

D . Money Bills received by the Senate page 620

E . List of Money Bills to which Recommendations made by

the Senate 621

F . Bills in respect of which the Suspensory Power was

exercised by the Senate 622

G . Bills Initiated in the Senate 626

H . Number of Sitting Days and Duration of Sitting 629

I . Average Attendance in Each Calendar Year 630

INDEX 631

INTRODUCTION

F or the adequate presentation of the political and constitutional his-
tory of a country an abundance of documented fact and of apposite
quotation is doubtless essential. But even if the piling of phenomena
upon phenomena be accompanied by a continuous attempt at inter-
pretation, one is left with the feeling that, in .the absence of an epi-
tome, the result may well have been to produce a series of fugitive
silhouettes rather than a picture bearing some resemblance to reality
and to artistic truth. Moreover, when a writer of contemporary his-
tory is dealing, not with some foreign country, but with his own land,
the patriotic duty is imposed on him of examining its perplexities with
insight and sympathy, and, if possible, of suggesting (however diffi-
dently) a solution of its discontents.

If the operation of the Home Rule Act of 1914 had not been frus-
trated by the non possumus attitude of the Ulster Unionists, there can
be no doubt that the subsequent history of Ireland would have been
very different. The contacts which would have been made by the
Unionists with men of the calibre of the Redmonds, John Dillon,
T. M. Healy, and William O’Brien would have removed prejudices
and allayed suspicions. The joint task of solving the problems of their
common country would, in time, have produced an identity of inter-
est. The limited status conferred by the Act would inevitably have
been outgrown by consent, and by this time a united Ireland would
probably have been as independent as South Africa. In short, there
would have been evolution instead of revolution. The creation of a
distinctive Irish way of life in the modem world, while maintaining
the links with our ancient past, the preservation of the Irish language
— these and other fruitful tasks could have been attempted in condi-
tions of tranquillity; and they are the only conditions in which such
attempts are Ukely to succeed.

The fact that Nationalists and Unionists fought side by side in the
Great War would undoubtedly have conduced to a more propitious
atmosphere but for the march of events at home. The Insurrection of
B 1

2 INTRODUCTION

Easter, 1916, is now looked upon as the beginning of a new era, but
it is an historical fact that it was condemned at the time by almost
every public body in Ireland. What subsequently swayed public opin-
ion in the opposite direction was the execution one by one of the
heroic leaders who took part in it, and national sentiment was further
aroused by the senseless (and, in the circumstances, quite futile) at-
tempt to impose conscription in April 1918. It was this attempt that
finally broke the Irish Parliamentary Party and ensured the supre-
macy of Sinn F6in and the Irish Volunteers. Just before the conscrip-
tion issue was raised the Ulster Unionists selfishly sabotaged the
considered proposals of the Irish Convention for a parliament for the
whole of Ireland.

The seventy-three Sinn F6in members (out of a total of 105) re-
turned at the general election of December 1918 made the mistake of
pitching their demands too high. They met as the first Ddil, issued a-
Declaration of Independence, and set up a Government of the Irish
Republic. These were noble and inspiring gestures, but they had ob-
viously no prospect of being realized in full. Great Britain had just
emerged victorious from a struggle with the greatest military power
in the world, and the Irish Volunteers, who had now become the
Army of the Irish Republic, could not possibly hope to defeat her in
the field. After the inevitable clash there would be negotiations, and
the Irish negotiators would have to accept something less than the
Republic. If all other obstacles had been surmounted, there still re-
mained the hard fact that one-quarter of the total representation,
from the north-east area of the country, was solid for the mainten-
ance of the union with Great Britain.

In December 1920, in the middle of the Anglo-Irish war, the British
Government attempted to cut the Gordian knot by establishing two
legislatures in Ireland, one for the six counties of north-east Ulster
and the other for the remaining twenty-six counties. In other words,
the country was partitioned, but provision was made for contact
through a Council of Ireland and for unification by mutual agree-
ment. Only four of the Ulster counties contained a majority of Union-
ists, and even in them there were considerable areas in which the
Nationalists were in a very substantial majority. The other two coun-
ties (Tyrone and Fermanagh) were added in order to make ‘Northern
Ireland’, as it was called, a viable area. The result was that a part of
Ireland in which the Catholic Nationalists numbered more than one-
third of the population was placed under a government of Protestant
Unionists who had never given any evidence of capacity for govern- '

INTRODUCTION 3

mental functions— none of them had held office at Westminster— nor
of any regard for the rights of the minority. In the remaining twenty-
six counties, somewhat humorously designated ‘Southern Ireland’,
partition was ignored and the guerrilla war continued.

Viewed in retrospect, the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 possesses a
quality of inevitability. The Irish were not prepared to take less than
what was then called dominion status. The British were not prepared
to concede more. In their final dispatch leading up to the negotia-
tions, the British Government had made it clear that on the question
of the recognition of the Republic they were adamant; and, as the
Irish were not in the position of dictating terms, it must have been
obvious to the Ddil Cabinet, when consenting to nominate plenipo-
tentiaries, that no progress could be made on that basis. Also, as the
Belfast Government were not represented, it must have appeared un-
likely, to say the least, that the status quo in Northern Ireland would
•be seriously disturbed. The partition difficulty was met by the boun-
dary provisions, which later, of course, proved to be nugatory in prac-
tice.-Against the undoubted benefits conferred by the Treaty must be
set two facts. The British had conceded to physical force what they
had consistently refused to constitutional agitation— a portent that
was not lost upon many of our people; and large numbers of Irish
Volunteers had spent their formative years in activities which, how-
ever patriotic, ill fitted them for their return to the humdrum life of
the Irish countryside.

It is only to be expected that the leaders of the opposition to the
Treaty should continue vehemently to assert that the Provisional
Government established thereunder was the result of a coup d'etat,
the authors of which were accordingly responsible for the Civil War.
But a statement which has no basis in fact does not become true by
constant repetition, and the facts have never been in doubt. The
Treaty was approved by a majority of the people’s representatives in
the Ddil. Two days later Mr. De Valera said that the resolution of ap-
proval was not the same thing as an Act of Ratification, though he
had not adverted to the point before the decision had been taken.
Pursuant to the Treaty, a Provisional Government was set up, and it
functioned alongside the existing Ddil Cabinet and in harmony with
it. Mr. De Valera held that the Provisional Government was illegal
and said that it would not be obeyed. In March, at Dungarvan, al-
though he was then only a private member of the Ddil, holding no
office either civil or military, he used words, quoted in the text, which
might be construed as advising the resumption of hostilities against

•4 INTRODUCTION

the British forces, which were then engaged in evacuating the coun-
try. The justifiability or otherwise of homicide is, in the highest de-
gree, a moral issue; and it is the doctrine of the Catholic Church that
the teaching of the bishops on moral questions must be obeyed. The
united Catholic Hierarchy issued a joint statement in April in which
they said that, whatever speculative views might be held on the sub-
ject, in practice there could be no doubt where the supreme authority
lay so long as the Dd.il and the Provisional Government continued to
act in unison; and they stated that the participants in the military re-
volt, when they shot their brothers on the opposite side, were mur-
derers. A few days afterwards Mr. De Valera said that it would be a
terrible thing if the taunt that these men were murderers should be up-
held by the common people ; he did not, however, attribute the ‘ taunt’
to the bishops, but to ‘ the English ’.

The general election fought on the issue of the Treaty resulted in
its acceptance by an overwhelming majority of the people. As the out-
rages continued the Hierarchy, in October, issued a Joint Pastoral, in
which they again expounded the moral law and condemned what the
irregular forces called a war as morally only a system of murder and
assassination. They also referred to the possibility that vanity and
self-conceit might have blinded some who thought that they, and not
the nation, must dictate the national policy. A few weeks later the
anti-Treaty minority of the Ddil appointed Mr. De Valera to be ‘Pre-
sident of the Republic’, established a government to function in co-
operation with the irregular forces, and rescinded the resolution ap-
proving the Treaty. The truth is that the actions, throughout 1922, of
the dissident minority both in the D&il and among the Irish Volun-
teers had rendered civil war inevitable. There was no coup d'etat , un-
less it be a coup d'dtat to oppose force with force in order to uphold
the plainly expressed decision of the majority.

Mention need be made of only one further matter in this connec-
tion, and that is desirable because of Mr. De Valera’s own frequent
> references to it, even at the present time. In March 1922 he made
.three speeches in which he predicted the shedding of Irish blood if the
Treaty was ratified at a general election, and his explanation has al-
ways been that his words merely constituted a solemn warning against
ratification, on the ground that the methods hitherto adopted in the
sttuggl® for the Republic would be impossible, since those methods
would involve the shedding by the Irish Volunteers of the blood of
their fellow countrymen. The passages in question are quoted in the
text of this book, and it will be seen that the wording of two of them

INTRODUCTION 5

renders this explanation impossible. Mr. De Valera said at Carrick-
on-Suir that, if the Treaty was accepted, the fight for freedom would
still go on, and that the Irish people, instead of fighting foreign sol-
diers, would have to fight the Irish soldiers of an Irish government.
At Killarney he said that if the Treaty was ratified and if the Volun-
teers continued, and he hoped they would continue until the goal was
reached, then, in order to achieve freedom, they would have to wade
through Irish blood. It will be seen that the words which I have placed
in italics forbid any explanation except the obvious one. Indeed, from
the beginning to the end of these speeches there is no suggestion that
‘ slaughter fratricidal ’ was a horror to be avoided at all costs.

The Civil War has cast an enduring and malign shadow over Irish
public life. It has poisoned, and to some extent continues to poison,
the relations between the two principal political parties. It is not im-
probable that it barred, soon after the Treaty was signed, a peaceful
solution of the problem of partition; and it has provided the excuse
for the continued existence of the Irish Republican Army, which has
the same objects and uses the same slogans as did the irregular forces
in 1922.

The Civil War has also had the effect, insufficiently noticed, of re-
tarding our political development, just as the partition issue has had
a similar effect in north-east Ulster. For several decades before 1921,
while Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, the political education
of the people of Great Britain progressed, under a gradually extend-
ing franchise, by means of the programmes expounded to them by the
various political parties — Liberal, Conservative, and, later, Labour.
The British elector had an opportunity of assessing the merits of each,
of making his choice, and of revising it later if he thought fit. The case
in Ireland was far otherwise. Inevitably, the only subject of secular
interest (apart from the land question) was the subject of Home Rule.
On this there was unanimity. General elections came and went, but,
except in Ulster, the candidates were either unopposed or else con-
tested the seats on largely personal issues. In Ulster, the issue in the
contested constituencies was Nationalism versus Unionism, just as it
is in the Six Counties to-day.

Thus the political education of the Irish people in 1921 was, through
no fault of our own, far below that of the people in the neighbouring
island. The self-government achieved under the Treaty gave us an op-
portunity to remedy this position, but the Civil War intervened to
prevent it by substituting the Treaty issue for the Home Rule issue.
The refusal of those who led the country into civil war to accept the

6 INTRODUCTION

Treaty position made the growth of normal political parties, on social
or economic lines, impossible. Even to-day, when the differences be-
tween the two major political parties are tending to become obliter-
ated — largely through the Government’s adoption of the policy of the
Opposition— the average elector still sees the issue as, * Having regard
to their past record, whom do you favour, Mr. Cosgrave or Mr. De
Valera?’

The first five years of the Irish Free State were the formative years.
The attempt to overthrow the State was successfully resisted, and
foundations were laid which, in spite of shocks, endure substantially
until this day. Friendly relations were maintained with Great Britain,
and by presenting their case in an unprovocative manner our repre-
sentatives at the Imperial Conference of 1926 did their full share in
clearing away much of the dead wood that hampered the free develop-
ment of the independent nations of the Commonwealth. With no
sacrifice of the essentials of Irish nationality, the co-operation of the
former Unionist element was welcomed and obtained.

Gratitude in politics is a fleeting thing, but it is right to give due
credit to Mr. Cosgrave, as head of the Government, for the achieve-
ments of this early period. He was the idol of the people at that time,
but he was never betrayed into demagogy, or into refraining from un-
popular acts for the sake of retaining his hold on the electors. As to
his Cabinet, il savait bien s' en tourer, as the French say. Such Minis-
ters as O’Higgins, Hogan, Mulcahy, O’Sullivan, and McGilliganwere
all highly educated men, with their feet firmly on the ground, who
knew their jobs before they started, or were not slow to learn. All
were of strong — in some cases, even dominant — personality, but Mr.
Cosgrave held them together. He was never more than a leader among
equals, which is precisely as it should be in a democratic State; and if
he had retired or been removed from the political arena the rdgime
would have continued, for there were others to succeed him.

For the successful working of parliamentary institutions a strong
government is not enough. A strong opposition is also essential, and
until August 1927 the D&il was a mere truncated assembly, since up-
wards of one-third of the members did not attend. In their absence it
was extremely fortunate that the small Labour Party was able to pro-
duce a leader of the calibre of Mr. Thomas Johnson, a politician of
great ability and integrity, of undoubted patriotism, and of tireless
energy in opposition. His colleagues included some capable men, but ~
the empty benches often seemed more eloquent than the speeches in
the House. Mr. De Valera apparently remained ‘President of the Re-

INTRODUCTION 7

public’ until near the end of 1925, when the ‘ Government of the Re-
public’ was repudiated by the Irish Republican Army. Thereafter he
proposed to Sinn F6in that Republicans should enter the Dail, pro-
vided that the parliamentary Oath was removed. Sinn F6in rejected
this proposal, and in May 1926 he founded the Fianna Fail Party. But
Fianna Fdil still stood for the establishment (or, as Sinn F6in and the
Irish Republican Army would have put it, the maintenance) of the
Irish Republic; and it continued to boycott the Ddil because of the
Oath.

In these early years the Senate proved to be of very great value to
the State. It is true that its powers were limited, and that the attitude
to it of both the Government and the Dail left much to be desired.
But in personnel it was probably the equal of any Second Chamber
then existing, and it exercised a considerable and wholly beneficial in-
fluence on legislation. Its principal achievement, however, lay in the
proof it afforded that Nationalists and Unionists could work har-
moniously together in Parliament for the good of their co mm on coun-
try. It would be less than the truth to say that each side met the other
half-way, because, in general, they never gave the impression of tak-
ing sides at all in a Nationalist or Unionist sense. Much of the credit
is due to the Nationalists (including, of course, the Labour Party),
because they were in the majority and so could, if they had been so
minded, have created an opposition and then have overridden it. But
that was never their way. The former Unionists have had their detrac-
tors, and so it is fitting that I, as a Catholic and a Nationalist who
was intimately acquainted with them individually, should place on
record my informed opinion. Of the Protestants and former Union-
ists who were at one time or another members of the Senate, an ex-
tremely high percentage were capable men, and not a few were men of
quite exceptional ability; They unreservedly accepted the new order,
and I never found that they held corporate views which ran counter
to the national interest. I never knew one who was not, in the most
genuine sense, a lover of Ireland, or who regarded Ireland as other
than his own country. I never knew one who, at any time, put the in-
terests of England before those of Ireland. And (except for one soli-
tary incident, duly chronicled, which merely served to prove the
rule) I never knew one who showed a trace of bigotry in the reli-
gious sense.

The murder of Kevin O’Higgins in the summer of 1927 marked a
turning-point in the history of the State, of which he had been the
strongest pillar. The Government passed legislation to end absten-

,8 INTRODUCTION

• tionism, and Mr. De Valera was forced either to modify his principles
or to abandon politics. He chose the former course, subscribed the
parliamentary Oath, and entered the Ddil with his followers, thus com-
pleting the membership of the House. He was destined to spend four
and a half years as Leader of the Opposition, but his ultimate return
to power was now inevitable, since the force of his personality had
kept the Treaty issue in the foreground and prevented the develop-
ment of political parties on rational lines. Entry into the D£il did not
involve recognition of its legality, however. The Fianna F&il news-
paper described the party’s action, editorially, as sheer expediency.
The Ddil, it said, was a faked parliament, a D&il of usurpers, which
they believed in their hearts to be illegitimate; and the Cosgrave Gov-
ernment was not the de jure government, but a junta. Mr. De Valera
stated that those who remained on in the organization which he had
left could claim the same continuity that he had claimed up to 1925-
in other words, that the ‘Government of the Republic’, which still
pursued a shadowy existence, was the real government of the coun-
try. This was not an isolated instance. Mr. O’Kelly referred to the
Minister for Defence as ‘the so-called Minister for Defence’, the im-
plication being that the real Minister for Defence was the one in the
‘Government of the Republic’; and Mr. Lemass described Fianna
F&il as ‘a slightly constitutional party’, which would not necessarily
confine itself to constitutional methods if those methods did not pro-
mote its object, which was the establishment of a Republican govern-
ment.

The fact that the Opposition held these views was naturally of in-
calculable value to the Irish Republican Army. Every attempt by the
Government to suppress intimidation and outrage was fought by
Fianna Fdil as bitterly as a rearguard action in the field. Mr. De
Valera held that the Cosgrave Administration was merely continuing
the British policy of coercion. The right way of dealing with the situa-
tion, he maintained, was to abolish the parliamentary Oath, though it
had not 'proved to be a barrier in his own case and he should have
known from personal experience that it was not a factor in the calcu-
lations of those who placed their faith in physical force. In 1931, after
some particularly atrocious murders, he stated that the members of
the Irish Republican Army were misguided, but still they were brave
men, and he enjoined for them the respect that is due to the brave.
Fortunately, the Government were not deflected from their obvious
duty to the people, and the insertion in the Constitution, a few months
before they left office, of an article authorizing the establishment of

INTRODUCTION 9

military tribunals gave them, and any government that might succeed
them, adequate powers for the suppression of disorder. There was a
certain irony about this drastic legislation. The whole of the unpopu-
larity which resulted from its enactment was incurred by the Cos-
grave Administration, and practically the whole of the benefit of its
provisions accrued to their successors. In view of the vehement de-
nunciations of the Opposition, nobody could have supposed that they
would operate the Military' Tribunal Article when they became a gov-
ernment. Indeed, Mr. Dc Valera promised to repeal the article in full,
and there can be no doubt that his attitude towards it contributed
very largely to his success at the general election of 1932.

There was a like irony in the advance to complete independence,
within the Commonwealth, which was achieved by the Cosgrave Ad-
ministration on the basis of the Treaty. The general principles laid
down at the Imperial Conference of 1926 were worked out in detail at
the Conferences of 1929 and 1930. The Reports of these Conferences
were denounced by Fianna Fail with no less vigour than the Military
Tribunal Article, and they were approved in the teeth of their opposi-
tion. The results were embodied in the Statute of Westminster, 1931,
which gave the Irish Free Slate unfettered legislative freedom, en-
abled her to repeal any existing laws of the United Kingdom Parlia-
ment in so far as they applied to her, and prohibited that Parliament
from enacting such laws in future without her express consent. Two
months after this crowning achievement had reached the Statute
Book the Cosgrave Government were voted out of office and their
successors were enabled, pursuant to the Statute, to repeal theTreaty;
but, of course, its validity as an international instrument remains un-
affected unless and until it is denounced by either of the parties to it
or else abrogated by mutual consent.

The last years of the Cosgrave Administration saw the influx of the
Fianna Fdil Party into the Senate, and consequently the rudiments of
a party system. This was not on very' pronounced lines, but, if the
Senate had not been abolished, the decision to constitute the two
Houses as the electorate would have produced in the long run a com-
pletely political Second Chamber, in which independent men of dis-
tinction would have found no place. The ceaseless attacks made upon
the Senate by leaders of the Opposition helped to discredit it in the
eyes of the public, who were not in a position to know the facts; and
their aim was admittedly to transform it into a body so nearly a re-
flex of the Dail as to render it useless and so to facilitate its abolition.

Mr. Dc Valera’s advent to office ushered in the expected period of

10 INTRODUCTION

unrest. He had been given a mandate to retain the Land Annuities
hitherto paid over, by agreement, to the British Government acting
on behalf of the bond-holders; and he claimed a mandate to abolish
the parliamentary Oath on the alleged ground that its removal would
not be a breach of the Treaty. He now announced his intentions on
these matters urbi et orbi, leaving the British Government to make the
first move in the inevitable dispute. As in private life he is the most
courteous of men, this action is probably to be explained by his fanati-
cal belief that he is right, and that there is no other side to any ques-
tion on which he has decided views. Indeed, it is not unlikely that he
did not foresee any dispute, since, in the election programme contain-
ing these two items, he stressed the fact that Ireland and Great Britain
are each other’s best customer and looked forward to getting a pre-
ference for Irish agricultural products. The Senate suspended the Bill
to abolish the Oath, thereby putting a nail in its own coffin; but the
British Government regarded the proposal as a breach of the Treaty
and declined to negotiate any trade agreement with the Irish Free
State at the Ottawa Conference. When Mr. De Valera withheld the
Land Annuities the British collected them by levying customs duties
on Irish imports. The Irish Free State retaliated, and the result was
the economic war. Anglo-Irish relations were not improved by the
treatment accorded to the Governor-General. He was insulted by
Ministers on a number of occasions, and, being refused an apology
by Mr. De Valera, published the correspondence against the formal
advice of the Government. He was accordingly dismissed, and the
choice of his successor made it clear that the office itself was unlikely
to be of long duration.

The Irish Republican Army had played an important part in Mr.
De Valera’s election success, and as soon as he had formed his Gov-
ernment the prisoners were released post-haste and the ban was re-
moved. No obstacle was placed in the way of its members’ marching
openly in military formation, and the Minister for Justice defended
the issuing of military words of command on such occasions. Intimi-
dation became rife, and the right of free speech was seriously threat-
ened. Unofficial action of an intimidatory character was taken in the
prosecution of the economic war, and while the Minister for Justice
promised protection from unwarrantable interference the Minister
for Finance said that all traders must bear in mind the consequences
of flouting public opinion. In these conditions of impending anarchy
the Army Comrades Association, later to be known as the Blue Shirts,
extended its membership to all who stood for the freedom of speech,

INTRODUCTION 11

of the Press, and of elections. A new party, called the National Centre
Party and led by Mr. Frank MacDermot and Mr. James Dillon, was
formed about the same time, with the object of giving the farmers and
the ratepayers their just share in the political life of the country. The
possibility of amalgamating this new party with the Cosgrave Party
was canvassed, and, with the object of forestalling any such move-
ment and of making himself independent of the Labour vote in the
Ddil, Mr. De Valera decided on a dissolution. His first Administra-
tion had lasted less than ten months, during which time the whole
Treaty position had been called in question, a bitter struggle had been
entered upon with Great Britain, and the Irish Republican Army had
acquired a power greater than it had enjoyed since the days of the
Civil War.

During the election campaign free speech and freedom from in-
timidation were secured with difficulty by the Army Comrades Asso-
ciation. Mr. De Valera was again returned to power, with a party
numbering just half the House, but with a minority of the total first
preference votes cast. The Bill to abolish the parliamentary Oath was
duly enacted over the head of the Senate, and so was brought to the
test Mr. De Valera’s professed belief that the Oath had been the bar-
rier to unified action and the cause of extremism. The Irish Republi-
can Army was by this time a heavily armed body, and it went from
strength to strength, its principal victims being the supporters of the
parliamentary Opposition and the unarmed Blue Shirts, now re-
organized under General O’Duffy, who had been relieved of his post
as Chief of Police. There had been a pre-election promise that all citi-
zens would be treated as equal before the law, but Mr. De Valera re-
garded the Irish Republican Army as a body which had its roots in
the past and one which might be said to have a national objective, and
he made no attempt to disarm it. He considered the unarmed Blue
Shirts to be a cause of provocation to the Irish Republican Army, and
his method of pacification consisted in suppressing the Blue Shirts
while allowing immunity to their opponents. The Blue Shirt organi-
zation was accordingly banned, the Military Tribunal was set up for
the trial of its members, and a body of armed men was recruited into
the police force, mainly consisting of ex-members of the Irish Repub-
lican Army. Impelled by the stress of events, the Cosgrave Party and
the National Centre Party joined forces with the Blue Shirts to form
the United Ireland Party, but the union was ill-starred. At intervals of
twelve months General O’Duffy resigned, Mr. MacDermot resigned,
and the Blue Shirts gradually came to an end.

12 INTRODUCTION

I regard the years 1932 to 1936 as the most sombre period in recent
Irish history. The Irish Republican Army was for the most part
tolerated, occasionally cajoled, and seldom seriously threatened, while
the constitutional Opposition was almost continuously harassed. The
Government’s security of tenure was facilitated in other ways. The
men who had sought to destroy the State during the Civil War, and
who had been condemned at the time by public opinion and by the
Catholic Church, were pensioned on the same terms as the officers
and men of the regular army, and, if their property had been damaged
or destroyed during that period, they were compensated. Besides the
recruiting of ex-members of the Irish Republican Army into the
police, others were placed in key-positions in the Army Volunteer Re-
serve. The parliamentary constituencies were rearranged in such a
manner as to reduce still further the chances of election of indepen-
dent members ; and the abolition of university representation not only
deprived the Dail of a much-needed leavening of educated men but
also removed some potential opponents of the Government. Speak-
ing in the Senate in 1934, Mr. Andrew Jameson made a prophecy
which came very near to fulfilment. He referred to the electoral
changes and said that they had seen the powers of the law strained to
the limit for the purpose of putting the representatives of the Oppo-
sition, if possible, into gaol, or at any rate preventing them getting a
free method of stating their case; and he predicted that, in two years’
time (when the Senate would have been abolished), the country would
be dominated by one party, ‘and one man at the head of that party,
with all that party bowing in acquiescence’. Though he could not
have known it, the country was being made ripe for the new Consti-
tution.

The Blue Shirts had, in Mr. De Valera’s phrase, used the machinery
of the law to defeat and prevent their own suppression, and so a Bill
was introduced to prohibit the wearing of political uniforms. Its pro-
visions did not apply to the Irish Republican Army, the members of
which do not wear uniform. The Senate rejected the Bill, and a Bill to
abolish the Senate was introduced on the following day.

The Senate’s action merely provided the occasion for the proposal
to abolish it, as Mr. De Valera stated that it was due to be abolished
in any case. It is now known that his object was to facilitate the sub-
version of the Constitution. At that time (1934) no specific mention of
any such intention had been made in Ireland, though early in 1930
Mr. De Valera is reported to have predicted in the United States that
his party would obtain a majority at the general election of 1932 and

INTRODUCTION !3

that they would then be able to overthrow the Constitution. His elec-
tion manifesto of that year asked for a mandate to abolish the Oath
and retain the Land Annuities, and he pledged himself not to exceed
that mandate without again consulting the people. All through the
debates on the abolition of the Senate, while adducing familiar and
unfamiliar arguments in favour of single chamber government, he
always left himself a loophole by proclaiming that, if anyone could
succeed where he had failed in devising a satisfactory Second Cham-
ber, he would preserve an open mind. He was adamant, however, on
the necessity for ‘a period of transition*, during which the D;'iil was
to be the sole House of the legislature, though the reason for this was
never made clear. When his purpose had been accomplished without
a fresh appeal to the people, he gave the reason for the first time.
With the national objectives which he had in front of him, he said, he
wanted to get rid of a Second House, and in particular he wanted to
get rid of the existing Second House while an important piece of con-
stitutional work had to be done. His new Constitution made provi-
sion for a Senate, and electors were urged to vote for the Constitu-
tion and the restoration of the bicameral system.

While the Senate was still in being measures were passed to deprive
the Governor-General of certain of his formal functions and to termi-
nate the right of appeal to the Privy Council. This right of appeal had
long been a dead letter and its existence was, of course, incompatible
with co-equality; and in general this legislation is of interest merely as
affording further evidence of reluctance to observe the customary
Commonwealth forms. The same could not be said of the two Acts
dealing with citizenship and alienage, which purported to deprive
Irish Free State citizens of their status of British subject, Mr. Dc
Valera stating that so to describe them would be an impertinence.
Conversely, the citizens, subjects, or nationals of the other member-
States of the Commonwealth were made aliens under our law, but
were saved from the consequences of alien status by a revocable minis-
terial order. Further advances towards the Republican ideal without
reference to the people had to await the abolition of the Senate.

The changes in the Constitution and the pensioning and admission
of their ex-members into the Army and the police had no more effect
upon the attitude of the Irish Republican Army than had the aboli-
tion of the parliamentary Oath. But it was not until the spring of 1935
that the organization became a serious menace to the Government,
which had for years allowed it a reasonably free hand against the
Opposition. Its members were increasingly arraigned before the Mtli-

14 INTRODUCTION

tary Tribunal, although Mr. De Valera waited till June 1936 before
taking the extreme step of re-imposing the ban which had been re-
voked when Mr. Cosgrave left office more than four years earlier.

It was not until the disappearance of the Senate was imminent that
Mr. De Valera made the definite announcement that there was to be
a new Constitution. At a later date he mentioned that the British
Government had been notified, but that the notification had been in-
formal, ‘because they have no right to interfere’. Normally, the issue
at the plebiscite would have been the existing Constitution, based on
the Treaty and including the King, against a new Constitution in
which neither appeared. If the issue had been put to the people in this
net form it is not at all unlikely that the result would have been the
same as in 1922, 1923, and twice in 1927 (the Treaty was not made an
issue in 1932 and 1933). But the abdication of King Edward VIII gave
Mr. De Valera an opportunity of putting his policy into force without
an appeal to the electors. In the space of little over twenty-four hours
the Single Chamber removed the King from the Constitution and
abolished the Governor-General, the connection with the Common-
wealth being retained for external purposes in an ordinary statute,
which Mr. De Valera has recently indicated may be repealed.

After this revolution had been effected the new Constitution came
somewhat as an anti-climax. The issue was the old Constitution, now
incorporating ‘external association’ and a single chamber, versus
the new Constitution, also incorporating ‘external association’ but
providing for a bicameral system. The new instrument creates a Presi-
dent (who is not, however, designated the head of the State), changes
the name of the State to fiire, and asserts de jure authority over
Northern Ireland. It contains a number of ‘Directive Principles of
Social Policy’ which make the document superficially attractive, but
as these are expressly stated not to be cognizable by any court their
appropriateness is not obvious.

The draft was * approved ’ by the existing Ddil, then nearing the end
of its statutory term, and it was approved by the people, by a narrow
majority, at a plebiscite held on the same day as a general election, the
number of non-voters forming 31 per cent of the electorate. Whatever
may be our constitutional status, now or in the future, the need for a
high standard of truth in political life remains paramount. In the issue
for December 1937 of the Fianna Fdil Bulletin the passing of the old
order was greeted as follows: ‘On December 29th we enter a new
phase of national history. The old Constitution, drafted in West-
minster, amended and excoriated by successive Fianna Fdil amend-

INTRODUCTION 15

meats until it is an empty symbol of imperial domination, will be-
come a scrap of paper.’

So ends our epitome. Let us now assess our gains and losses over
nineteen years. On the credit side, the march of events has proved the
wisdom of those who held that the Treaty of 1921 gave us ‘freedom
to achieve freedom’. At that time it might have seemed that ‘do-
minion status’ was a misnomer and a misfit, since Ireland, like Great
Britain, is a mother-country of the British Commonwealth and Em-
pire. But the successive advances in status which culminated in the
Statute of Westminster placed all the States of the Commonwealth on
terms of absolute equality, theoretical and practical, the sole link
being the Crown, which in the case of the Irish Free State was to func-
tion solely on the advice of Irish Ministers. Though the fact is not
generally realized, the term ‘dominion status* has itself become out-
moded. The present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King)
has put the position accurately. Speaking in the Canadian House of
Commons on the 24th May 1938, he said: ‘The time has come to
cease speaking of “the Dominions” as if they were some peculiar,
half-fledged type of community, and all alike in their interests and
views. Such a usage leads to confusion. . . . South Africa is South
Africa, New Zealand is New Zealand, Australia is Australia, and
Canada is Canada, and it will help to good understanding if that ele-
mentary fact is borne in mind.’ 1

No other member-State has put the fact of complete independence
to such proof as we have, since we have reduced the link of the Crown
to the tenuity of a spider’s filament, and nobody doubts that if the
oft-threatened Republic were to be proclaimed to-morrow its declara-
tion would be received with regret but without retaliation by the other
members. The supreme test of a nation’s freedom is its right to neu-
trality in war. This right has never been questioned in our case, and
our exercise of it has occasioned neither protest nor surprise. Indeed,
our Ministers have testified to the cordial and helpful attitude adopted
by the British Government since the outbreak of the present conflict. ■

On the debit side there are two grievous items, which by reacting on
each other bedevil the whole political situation. The first is the con-
tinued existence of the Irish Republican Army and the second is par-
tition. For the former, history will assign the responsibility. Its aim is
the establishment of a Republic for the Whole of Ireland, and its prin-
ciples and methods have not altered since 1922, though its leadership
has changed. It is now an unlawful organization, but it may well be

1 House of Commons Debates (Canada), ccxvi, 3 1 89-90.

16 INTRODUCTION

questioned whether it would be in existence at all but for the encour-
agement afforded to it by Mr. De Valera and his supporters during
the Cosgrave regime and the toleration which it enjoyed during the
first four years of the Fianna P4.il Administration. The members of
the present Government are sometimes at pains to show that the posi-
tion now is radically different from what it was in 1922, and their
anxiety on the point is intelligible enough. They say that we now have
a Constitution chosen freely by the people at a plebiscite, whereas the
Constitution of 1922 was not submitted to the people for approval or
rejection. It is as well to recall the facts. The Provisional Government
offered an election in June 1922 on the issue of the Treaty and the
Constitution, asking for a guarantee against intimidation. This pro-
posal having been refused by Mr. De Valera, they offered an election
on the single issue of the Treaty, the body so elected to devise the
Constitution and then to dissolve, so that the electors might give their
verdict. This suggestion was also rejected. Actually, the Constitution
was published in the newspapers on the morning of the general elec-
tion, but nobody can doubt that, if there had been a separate plebis-
cite, the result would have been the same. After more than a year’s
experience of the Constitution the Government which had sponsored
it was returned to power. In such cases, it is not a question of ‘the
nicely calculated less or more’, but it is pertinent to point out that, of
those who voted in the general election of 1922, 78 per cent were in
favour of the Treaty and 22 per cent were against it; of those who
voted in the plebiscite of 1937, 57 per cent were in favour of the new
Constitution and 43 per cent were against it.

No terrorist organization can long exist in defiance of public opin-
ion, and I do not believe that there is a strong public opinion behind
the Irish Republican Army. But, our history and traditions being
what they are, there is no doubt that our people, encouraged by the
utterances of a few brittle intellectuals, do readily respond to an emo-
tional appeal, especially on the subject of the partition of Ireland.
The Church has laid down the moral law for those who are not deaf
to its teaching, and it must and will be heard. The Catholic individual
— still more the Catholic nation — who flouts the Church’s doctrine
must remain unblest. If I were the head of the Government, while al-
lowing the fullest freedom to preach a republican policy, I should
make it my object to ensure that an unlicensed firearm was as rare as
a snowflake in summer. That this is not impracticable is shown by the
sequel to the magazine raid in the Phoenix Park a few days before
Christmas 1939. About two million rounds of ammunition were

INTRODUCTION 17

stolen, and as a result of intense activity by the forces of the State
practically the whole of it was recovered within a few weeks. But until
we have a government which is in a position to condemn terrorism
not only on the grounds of illegality and expediency but on the moral
ground as well, it is to be feared that it will continue to vex us. For the
moral ground transcends and includes all others. As John Morley
said, ‘Those who would treat politics and morality apart will never
understand the one or the other.*

Before we consider the question of partition it is desirable to say
something of the Irish language, since it is the keystone of the arch in
Mr. De Valera’s conception of nationality, and also in that of numer-
ous others, by no means confined to his political party, who think as
he does. Its connection with partition is made clear by the following
quotation from one of Mr. De Valera’s speeches in the Senate (7th
February 1939):

‘If I were told to-morrow: “You can have a united Ireland if you
give up your idea of restoring the national language to be the spoken
language of the majority of the people, ” I would, for myself, say no.
... I would say it for this reason: that I believe that as long as the
language remains you have a distinguishing characteristic of nation-
ality which will enable the nation to persist. If you lose the language
the danger is that there would be absorption.’ 1

This puts the issue in a net form.

It would be a good thing if everyone who discusses this highly con-
troversial subject were to state his qualifications before doing so. I do
not regard my own as very considerable. I am not a native speaker of
Irish, although it was the language of my immediate forebears; but I
have loved it since boyhood with a passion that has been only deep-
ened by time. Over a period of twenty years I have published, anno-
tated, and translated some thousands of lines of the poetry of the
people, from manuscripts and from oral tradition — of which work it
can, of course, be said that it would have been better done if its author
had been better equipped. Hardly a day passes that I do not read or
write some Irish; and its folk songs, stored in my memory, are always
my invisible companions.

At the least, then, I have no prejudice against the Irish language.
But I am a realist, and I say, firstly, that language is not an essential
hall-mark of nationality, and, secondly, that I rejoice that it is not.
For the attempt to make the Irish language the spoken tongue of the
majority of the people cannot, in my opinion, possibly succeed. In-
1 Senate Debates, xxii, 1522-3.

18 INTRODUCTION

deed, I hold it to have already failed; but, as Matthew Arnold said,
we are eternal rebels against the despotism of fact, and if a fact is un-
pleasant we close our eyes to it. In the Senate speech from which I
have just quoted, Mr. De Valera came as near to admitting failure as
one could fairly expect, for he continued: ‘One of the sad things for
me all the time is that there has not been a fuller appreciation of that
fact amongst the young people of the country,’ that is to say, the al-
leged danger of absorption if the language is lost.

The Irish language volume of the 1 936 census has not yet been pub-
lished, but the figures for 1926 reveal the fact that the number of per-
sons who spoke Irish only was then 12,460 out of a total population
of 2,971,992— or less than one-half of one per cent. It will now be
much less still, because the majority of these were elderly people four-
teen years ago. Apart from this figure, the most valuable information
that the census could have afforded would have been (a) the number
of native speakers, and (6) the number of persons whose Irish is ac-
quired. The questionnaire was designed on this basis, but the project
had to be abandoned because the answers were so often obviously
erroneous. For example, native speakers were returned as 50 per cent
more numerous between the ages of ten and fourteen than between
the ages of five and nine! However, the number of ‘Irish speakers’
(of both kinds) was returned as 18*3 per cent of the total population.

This is little enough, but personally — and I wish I could say other-
wise — I do not believe that the percentage was, or is, anything like so
high. As the Director of Statistics points out, personal judgement en-
tered so largely into the replies as to render the numbers insusceptible
of exact measurement. It is certain that many persons, from mistaken
motives of patriotism, claim to ‘ know Irish’ when their acquaintance
with it falls far short of knowledge — even if, sometimes, they cannot
do much more than write their names in that language. A literate per-
son may fairly claim to know a language other than his mother tongue
only if he can read it with ease, converse fluently in it, and, without
the aid of a dictionary, translate a passage of ordinary difficulty into
his native tongue, and vice versa. Judged by this test, I greatly doubt
whether 5 per cent of the population could be said to know Irish.
Even a modest 5 per cent would mean 150,000 persons — a public
quite large enough to justify the publication, on a commercial basis,
of at least one weekly newspaper of general interest, and we have not
a single one.

The truth is that when the politicians took control of the language
movement, ousting Dr. Douglas Hyde from the presidency of the

INTRODUCTION 19

Gaelic League, they again pitched their claims too high. The slogan
‘Up the Republic’ was paralleled by the slogan, Gan teanga, gan tlr,
which means ‘No language, no country’, and Mr. De Valera is even
more tied to the one than to the other. Not only is the teaching of
Irish compulsory in the schools, but other subjects are taught, or
rather attempted to be taught, by teachers who have themselves had
to learn the language and who often know it only imperfectly. The
result may well be, as has been said, to make the children illiterate in
two languages. Protests are made by parents, by the teachers them-
selves, and by responsible educationalists, but these are unlikely to
have any effect while the present theory of nationality is predominant.

The policy of compulsory Irish exercises an influence in spheres
other than that of education, and the general position may be given
in Mr. De Valera’s own words. Speaking in the Ddil on the 23rd May
1939 he said: ‘It is one of the most difficult tasks that we could pos-
sibly tackle, this task of trying to make Irish the spoken language. Y ou
cannot do it without making sacrifices. It is not alone here that I have
spoken of the sacrifices we have had to make in order to get Irish put
into a position of prominence. You have frequently to take the second
best. We have, in regard to certain appointments that have been
made, appointments of a technical character, said that where a person
has a competent knowledge of Irish, if he is otherwise qualified, he
has to take precedence over those who may have even a better tech-
nical knowledge. If you do not do that, you make no progress.’ 1

This is not progress but retrogression, and it may easily lead to job-
bery. The sacrifices referred to have to be made not by the politicians
but by the poor. If the poor are ill, it is small consolation to them to
know that their ‘second best’ dispensary doctor has ‘a competent
knowledge of Irish’ — a singularly elastic term, by the way— while
men with superior qualifications have, quite probably, departed to
practise their profession in England or elsewhere. And similarly in the
case of midwives, sanitary engineers, veterinary surgeons, and a host
of others.

Our natural resentment at folly of this kind should not blind us to
the fact that we have in the Irish language a heritage of great price,
and that we should do everything in our power to preserve and to
propagate it. The policy of compulsion is now eighteen years old, and
so those of the population who are in their twenties or early thirties
have had the benefit of it or otherwise. The time has come to make a
searching examination of the position in the light of experience, and,

1 Ddil Debates, Ixxvi, 97.

20 INTRODUCTION

if I were in control, I would have such an investigation conducted by
a representative, independent commission. Its task would be (a) to
discover how far the policy of compulsion has justified the expecta-
tion of making Irish the spoken language of the majority of the
people, and (b) to assess the effect of that policy upon education in
general. In view of these terms of reference I would not confine the
membership of the commission to persons who know Irish, but I
would rigidly exclude politicians and persons whose knowledge of the
language amounts to no more than a smattering. If the Report of the
Commission were unfavourable to the policy I would scrap the policy
without hesitation.

On the other hand, I would spare no effort to rekindle the enthusi-
asm which gave such satisfactory results under the voluntary system
and which compulsion has turned into apathy or active dislike. I look
forward to the time when a sound knowledge of Irish may be regarded
as not unexceptional among the educated classes, but I should not
look for it among those who have no special aptitude for languages
nor regard it, per se, as a title to preferment. The genuinely Irish-
speaking areas constitute a special problem. They are the only reposi-
tories of the living language, and the most strenuous efforts are needed
to arrest the decay which has been in progress for a century. In these
areas not only education but all the administrative and social services
should continue to be conducted through the medium of Irish and
more money ought to be spent on the indigenous industries. Modern
industries should be kept away from them, since the language which
has its roots in these relatively primitive districts is not in a position
to survive modern industrial development.

The Six Counties of Northern Ireland contain very few native '
speakers of Irish, and so, even if no other obstacle existed to Irish
unity, the language question would constitute an effective barrier so
long as Mr. De Valera remains a force to be reckoned with. His policy
in this and other matters is the result of a constrictive national philo-
sophy which should have no place in the modern world and which
would have been unintelligible to any of the great men who preceded
him in the leadership of the Irish people. He seems to envisage the
Irish nation as it was before the several conquests, and takes small ac-
count of the place in that nation of the descendants of the English and
Scottish settlers who reached our shores on the successive waves of
invasion centuries ago. A passage from a recent book by two disting-
uished scientists is here in point, though the authors do not refer
specifically to Ireland.

INTRODUCTION 21

‘All the movements towards national unity that were so character-
istic of the nineteenth century present certain features in common.
Among these we would especially note the rise of a myth, so similar
in all these cases that we must suppose that it is a natural way of
thinking for peoples in like circumstances. Among all the newer and
almost all the older nationalities a state of freedom from external
political domination has been projected into the past and associated
with a hypothetical ancient unity, itself considered as derived from a
common inheritance. The implications of this unity were usually left
vague; sometimes they were conceived in a legal and historical sense,
but often also they were grafted on to a conception of kinship re-
garded as a matter of physical transmission A “nation” has been

cynically but not inaptly defined as “a society united by a common
error as to its origin and a common aversion to its neighbours”.’ 1

On this, as on so many other matters, my views are at direct vari-
ance with those of Mr. De Valera. Paying no heed to alleged racial
origins, I am content to regard any man as Irish who claims Ireland
as his home and who, instinctively or by habit of mind, does not place
the interests of any other country before his own. We are of diverse
origin, but we are one people, and the exuberance of the Republican
and of the Orangeman are but the obverse and the reverse of the same
medal. If an Irishman feels a special loyalty to the King (as do most
Protestants and some Catholics), I say that he is quite entitled to do
so, and that he is not thereby deprived of his title-deeds of nationality.
If a man whose ancestors were of English stock feels no special en-
thusiasm for the Irish language, I regret the fact but regard it as
natural enough, though I remind him that some of the greatest of our
living scholars of Irish are also of English stock. A northern acquain-
tance recently asked me, in all sincerity, whether there was any room
for Protestantism in a united Ireland. My answer is that our national
history and our national principles alike forbid the exclusion of Irish
Protestants from our common heritage. In the past they have often
been the spearhead of Irish nationalism. In the future they have much
to contribute to our national life. The nature and extent of that con-
tribution must, however, depend on themselves. It can only be given
on a basis of freedom and equality. In short, to me at all events, we
. are neither Gael nor Gall, but Irishmen finding our inspiration in the
tradition of our race — a sea which is fed by many streams. Our coun-
try is not liire, the Irish Free State, Northern Ireland, or any of the
other aliases with which the politicians have sought to camouflage

1 Julian S. Huxley and A. C. Haddon, We Europeans (1935), pp. 15, 16.

22 INTRODUCTION

their mistakes, but Ireland, the common mother of Gael and Gall, of
Protestant and Catholic. Anything superadded to the name of Irish-
man is but the leather and prunella of nationality.

There can, however, be no adequate appreciation of the injustice of
partition, of its danger to the Commonwealth, and of the difficulties
surrounding its removal, unless the fact is fully realized that the
Government of Northern Ireland is on a politico-religious basis. The
General Report of the census taken on the 28th February 1937 is not
yet available, but the following figures and percentages have been
compiled from the County Books issued in connection therewith.

Catholics

428,290

33-5

Presbyterians

390,931

30-5

Church of Ireland

345,474

27-0.

Methodists

55,135

4-3

All others

59,915

4-7

1,279,745

100

Thus, the Catholics are the largest single religious denomination, but
the government is in the hands of the Orange Order, a society estab-
lished in 1795 for the maintenance of Protestant ascendancy in Ire-
land. Dozens of examples could be adduced in proof of this fact, but
the following should prove sufficient. They are taken from typical
‘Twelfth of July’ orations delivered in 1933, though any other year
would do as well. The Prime Minister, Lord Craigavon, said, ‘I am
an Orangeman to the heart, and always an Orangeman.’ 1 Captain H.
Dixon, Chief Government Whip, since elevated to the peerage as
Lord Glentoran, gave point to this statement by referring to the
Church of Rome as the ‘old hereditary enemy’ of the Orange Order. 8
Sir Basil Brooke, baronet and Minister of Agriculture, who lives in
County Fermanagh, where Catholics are in a majority, expressed
himself as follows: ‘Many of his audience employed Roman Catho-
lics, but he had not one about his place. Catholics were out to destroy
Ulster with all their might and power. They wanted to nullify the
Protestant vote and take all they could out of Ulster and then see it
go to hell.’ 3 The Rt. Hon. J, M. Andrews, Minister of Labour, re-
futed an allegation that, of thirty-one porters employed at Stormont
(the seat of the Belfast Government and Parliament), twenty-eight
were Catholics. ‘ I have investigated the matter and I have found that
there are thirty Protestants and only one Roman Catholic — there
1 Belfast News-Letter, 13 July 1933. * Ibid. 3 Ibid.

INTRODUCTION 23

only temporarily.’ 1 On another occasion Sir E. M. Archdale, also a
member of the Cabinet, dealt with Catholics of a higher social status
and actually apologized for even the exiguous number of them em-
ployed in his Department of State. ‘I have 109 officials, and, so far
as I know, there are four Roman Catholics. Three of these were
Civil Servants turned over to me, whom I had to take when we
began.’ 2

It is safe to say that this condition of affairs, if allowed to develop
indefinitely, might easily provoke a revolution, since more than one-
third of the population is relegated to a permanent state of inferiority;
moreover, this minority is part of the majority of the whole island,
with which it longs for reunion. The claim of Northern Ministers to
speak for Ulster should be exploded for good. Ulster consists of nine
counties, and if the Partition Act of 1920 had placed Ulster under the
Belfast Government the domination of the Orange Order would have
ended many years ago. Lord Craigavon (then Captain James Craig)
himself admitted the fact when the Bill was before the House of Com-
mons. He said: ‘We had to take the decision a few days ago as to
whether we should call upon the Government to include the nine

counties or be satisfied with the six The majority of Unionists in

the nine counties’ Parliament is very small indeed. . . . We quite frank-
ly admit that we cannot hold the nine counties Therefore, we have

decided that, in the interests of the greater part of Ulster, it is better
that we should give up those three counties.’ 3 In other words, the
British Government gave the Orangemen whatever they decided to
take, and they took the largest possible area that would give them a
perpetual, impregnable majority.

Tragedy, in Hegel’s words, is the conflict not of right with wrong,
but of right with right; and this philosophic truth is here exemplified.
The Irish nation has an inalienable and sacred right to territorial
unity. The Northern Protestants have a right to be continued in that
allegiance which has been theirs for centuries. Until these two rights
are acknowledged and reconciled we shall make no progress.

Each side has been driven along the road of extremism by the ex-
travagances of the other. Lord Craigavon claims ‘Ulster’ as ‘an out-
post of Empire’ which only wishes to know how best it can serve ‘the
mother country’. Thus he is back nearly as far as some of the politi-
cians on the other side of the border, regarding himself and his co-
religionists in much the same light as the defenders of Derry in 1689.

i Belfast News-Letter , 13 July 1933. 2 Irish News, 2 April 1925.

3 House of Commons Debates, cxxvii, 991.

24 INTRODUCTION

I do not believe that his better-educated followers look upon them-
selves as colonists, or upon England as their mother country; and I
am glad to acknowledge, from my own experience, that the more
thoughtful Northern Protestants have scant sympathy with such an
attitude. A community which ceases to develop culturally and spirit-
ually, drawing its inspiration from the soil in which it has its roots, is
ready to be measured for its shroud. History has shown that an Eng-
lish or Scottish colony cannot continue to thrive as a sort of enclave
in Ireland, taking its culture from elsewhere.

Instant as is the need for a settlement, I see no prospect of one
while the official policies in Dublin and Belfast remain what they are.
Mr. De Valera’s inconsistencies need not be overstressed, but they do
denote the absence of any definite plan. Some of his utterances will be
found quoted in the Epilogue. In June 1938 he said that he was cer-
tain that, when there was a majority in the North for unity, there
would be no interference by Great Britain; the following November
he held Britain responsible, on the ground that partition could not
continue if British support were withdrawn. On the 7th February
1939, in the Senate, he said that he ‘would feel perfectly justified in
using force to prevent the coercion of the people of South Down,
South Armagh, Tyrone, Fermanagh, and Derry City’; 1 and on the
following 26th July, again in the Senate, he said that there were
people in the country who, whenever they wanted it, were both Irish
and English and that it would pay to put it up to them to decide which
they were. ‘If they were to say they were English it would pay both
countries to contribute to buy them out, and let them go to the coun-
try of their own allegiance.’ 2 Against these foolish statements may be
set some words of wisdom which occur in an interview which he gave
to a special correspondent of the New York Herald-Tribune , repro-
duced in the Dublin newspapers of the 28th February 1940: ‘Apart
altogether from the fact that force would be met by force, you must
remember that, even if force were successful, we would have in our
midst an embittered minority, who in heart would be more separated
from us than ever. We never forget that many of these people, who
with their forebears have been here for hundreds of years, though
they differ from us, are proud of being Irish, and we want to have
them fully and completely one with us. We are confident that on the
basis of that bond of common love for Ireland reunion can hardly be
other than inevitable.’

Mr. De Valera’s only concrete proposal is that published in the
1 Senate Debates , xxii, 1514. a ibid., xxiii, 1002-3.

INTRODUCTION 25

London Evening Standard on the 17th October'1938 and reproduced
in the Epilogue. Belfast is to retain its present local Parliament, pro-
vided that fair play is guaranteed to the minority, and the powers now
reserved to the Imperial Parliament are to be transferred to an all-
Ireland Parliament. This seems vague enough, since it makes no men-
tion of the numerous complex questions — such as defence and tariff
policy — which would have to be decided before such a plan could be
seriously considered. But the whole proposal is vitiated by the fact,
since made clear on numerous occasions, that the Constitution of
1937 is to be accepted as a sine qua non of union. The author of a con-
stitution frequently regards his creation as an inspired evangel, but,
on every democratic principle, Mr. De Valera’s Constitution would
have to go into the melting-pot if any approach were to be made to
unity. Not only is its basic principle of ‘external association’ known
to be inacceptable to the majority in the North, but it has never been
submitted to the electors in any part of Ireland, since it was already
a fait accompli at the time of the plebiscite. Apart from the question
of ‘external association’. Northern Ireland is told, in effect, that it
must accept a constitution on which it has had no opportunity of ex-
pressing an opinion and which, at the plebiscite, received only a small
minority of the total votes, if we consider them on an all-Ireland basis.
The voting at the plebiscite was: for the Constitution, 26 per cent;
against the Constitution, 20 per cent; eligible to vote but did not vote,
22 per cent; ineligible to vote (Northern Ireland), 32 per cent. Before
a constitution comes to be framed for the whole of Ireland, it will
have to be preceded by a round-table conference of delegates repre-
sentative of every substantial interest in the country, who will en-
deavour to reach agreement on the main lines on which such a con-
stitution should be drafted.

What, then, shall we say of the problem of partition? Obviously, no
immediate solution is possible, because, even if there was no other
obstacle, the war would stand in the way. The abolition ofpartition
would involve either the Twenty-six Counties’ becoming belligerent
or the Six Counties’ renouncing their belligerency, and I do not re-
• gard either of these possibilities as practical politics. Looking beyond
the war, I see no royal road to unity, but I am certain that there is no
republican road. When I reflect on the manifest difficulties, that preg-
nant saying of Thiers keeps recurring to my mind, ‘Le rdgime qui
nous divise' le moms.’ Now, what is the rdgime which divides us the
, • least? There can be only one-answer. Some of us (I speak of the whole
of Ireland) have a republic as their objective, by force of arms if ne-

26 INTRODUCTION

cessary. Others would oppose a republic by force of arms. ‘External
association’, which is Mr. De Valera’s peculiar invention, is rejected
out of hand by at least a quarter of our people and it makes for per-
manent instability, since, as he has so often pointed out, it enables a
republic to be declared to-morrow. In any case, ‘external association’
has no existence in international law, and it ill consorts with the na-
tional dignity. The regime which divides us the least is, beyond all
question, the complete independence which is conferred by full mem-
bership of the Commonwealth, with all its rights and privileges and
its few remaining obligations. I know that such a policy will be as-
sailed by the ignorant and unscrupulous as ‘Imperialist domination’
and ‘a betrayal of the Republic’, but that should not deter us from
advocating it. Personally, I am not interested in names and symbols,
but I am tremendously interested in things and ideas, in feelings and
points of view; and I dislike a priori reasoning in politics.

But before we can make any headway in removing partition, we
must remove the psychological barriers of which it is merely the out-
ward manifestation. In other words, a campaign of political educa-
tion is overdue on both sides of the border. We must, for the time
being, agree to differ, but that is no reason why we should not try to
see each other’s point of view, to dispel prejudices by personal con-
tact, and to provide the ordinary people with the information about
the other side which they so sadly lack. Good work is already being
done in this field by the recently formed Irish Association, and it will
doubtless fructify. While not contemning the loyalty of the Orange
and Protestant minority, we should seek to rationalize it by reference
to the dynamism of the Commonwealth and Empire, of which they
know little or nothing. Equally, the majority need to be convinced
that the Commonwealth is not the old Empire, but is, indeed, sui
generis, that membership of it does not injure or inhibit one single
national ideal, and that, on the contrary, it would provide the sole
guarantee of the unity and territorial integrity of Ireland. The de-
plorable situation of the Northern Catholics would be greatly amelio-
rated if there existed in Dublin a government in a position to re-
nounce, finally and for ever, the use of force against the North; for
fear is the stepmother of oppression. Better still if the agreement of
December 1925 to hold joint meetings of the two Cabinets could now
be taken up and carried through; but this presupposes on both sides
a change of heart and probably also a change of Government. Above
all, Irish men and women, whatever their political or religious belief,
must be made to realize their interdependence, that their common in-

INTRODUCTION 27

terests are greater and more important than the things which divide
them, and that they must subordinate passion and prejudice to pat-
riotism if their country is to survive.

The life of any nation is not a continuous progression. There must
be loss and gain, ebb and flow. Looking back on the last twenty years
of Irish history, I see no grounds for pessimism, but rather the reverse.
Inevitably, mistakes have been made, but they are in general recog-
nized to have been mistakes, even though it is not in human nature
that they should always be openly acknowledged. The principle of
majority rule is now virtually of universal recognition. We have de-
monstrated to ourselves and to the world that our legislative freedom
is absolute, and we are beginning to realize that freedom has its duties
and responsibilities as well as its rights. While partition remains, our
political institutions will continue in a state of flux, but the flow is
now in the right direction. Our principal need is for more and more
men of knowledge, experience, and education in both Houses of our
Parliament; for I am convinced that, if given the opportunity, our
people will respond in the future, as they have in the past, to the
leadership of patriotic Irishmen, informed with high purpose and
preaching with conviction and courage the faith that is in them.

PARTI

THE YEARS

PRIOR TO THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF THE

IRISH FREE STATE

‘ Now we celebrate an independent Government, an original Constitu-
tion, an independent Legislature .*

Pennsylvania Packet, 9th July 1789,

‘ Better far, if brothers' war be destined for us,

( God avert that horrid day , I pray!).

That ere our hands be stained with slaughter fratricidal
Thy warm heart should be cold in clay.'

Sir Samuel Ferguson, Lament for Thomas Davis.

CHAPTER I

THE PRELUDE TO THE ANGLO-IRISH TREATY

OF 1921

Constitutional agitation for self-government — Government of Ireland
Bill, 1912 — Limited powers thereunder — Proposals for a Senate —
Gaelic League and Gaelic Athletic Association — Arthur Griffith and
Sinn Fein — Irish Republican Brotherhood — Hostility of Ulster to Bill
of 1912 — Ulster Volunteers — Irish Vohmteers — Danger of civil war —
Outbreak of Great War — John Redmond's declaration — Postponement
of Government of Ireland Act — Split in Irish Volunteers — Irish Republi-
can Brotherhood decide on insurrection — Easter Week , 1916 — Execu-
tions and aftermath — Casement's speech from the dock — Irish Conven-
tion set up — Mr. Dc Valera's victory in Clare election and attitude to
Ulster — Elected President of Sinn Fdin and of Irish Volunteers — Death
of Redmond — Report of Irish Convention — Composition and powers of
proposed Senate — Threat of conscription — Ruin of parliament arianism
— ‘ German Plot' — General election of December 1918 — Triumph of
Sinn Fein — Establishment of Ddil Lircaim and Declaration of Indepen-
dence — Irish Republican Army — Anglo-Irish War — Government of
Ireland Act, 1920 , and Partition — General elections of May 1921 —
Truce of July 1921 — Correspondence between Mr. Dc Valera and Mr.
Lloyd George — Signature of Anglo-Irish Treaty.

1 he history of Ireland during the years immediately before the
establishment of the Irish Free State has been dealt with in detail, and
from various aspects, by several writers. No more than a bare outline
of that history need be given as the prelude to the main theme of this
book, and many facts of importance must necessarily be omitted.
Reference will, however, be made to the abortive proposals put for-
ward at one time or another for the constitution of a Second Chamber
in a self-governed Ireland.

32 THE PRELUDE TO THE TREATY OF 1921

For many decades before the Great War the age-old aspiration of
the Irish nation for legislative independence had found expression in
constitutional agitation through its Members of Parliament at West-
minster. The last insurrection against English rule had occurred so
long ago as 1867; it had been organized by the Irish Republican
Brotherhood (a secret society popularly known as the Fenians), and,
like its numerous predecessors, it had been a failure. The Irish Parlia-
mentarians had undoubtedly secured great material benefits for the
people, for which too little credit is now given to them. But they had
failed to achieve the purpose for which they were elected, owing to
the veto of the House of Lords. The general election of December
1910 was fought on the issue of this veto, and the Liberal Government
was returned to power. By the Parliament Act, 1911, the veto was
swept away and a mere power of delay was substituted for it. The fol-
lowing year a Government of Ireland Bill was introduced in the House
of Commons, and it was passed by that House early in 1913, by a
comfortable majority and independently of the Irish Nationalist vote.
It was rejected by the House of Lords by an overwhelming majority,
but such rejection was no longer fatal to it, and the Bill was due to
become law under the Parliament Act in the summer of 1914.

This Bill made provision for a parliament for the whole of Ireland,
but the powers of that parliament were to be extremely limited.
Foreign affairs and fiscal control were excluded from its purview, it
had only a restricted control over finance, and none at all over the
police force during the first six years. Ireland was to have no army or
navy, and the Irish connection with Westminster was not severed, as
42 members were to be elected to the Imperial Parliament instead of
the 103 returned under the Act of Union of 1800. Of the 103 Irish
members elected at the general election of December 1910, 84 were
Nationalists and 19 were Unionists. All but a few of the Nationalists
were followers of the late John Redmond. Apart from the two mem-
bers for Dublin University and one from a Dublin constituency, the
Unionists all came from the north-eastern area of the province of
Ulster.

The Parliament under the Bill was to consist of a Senate and a
House of Commons. The number of Senators was fixed at forty, to be
nominated in the first instance by the Lord-Lieutenant, and after-
wards to be elected by the four provinces of Ireland, as separate con-
stituencies, in the following proportions: Ulster, 14; Leinster, 11;
Munster, 9 ; Connaught, 6. The election was to be held on the single,
transferable vote system of proportional representation, and the

POLICY OF ARTHUR GRIFFITH 33

term of office was to be five years. The Senate could reject or other-
wise hold up a Bill, but if it again did so in the next session the
differences between the two Houses were to be resolved by a vote
taken at a joint sitting.

Though the fact may now seem surprising, the Bill of 1912, with
its severely restricted powers, commanded the overwhelming support
of the people. There were some who had a wider and deeper concep-
tion of Irish nationality, but their numbers were quite negligible. In
1893 Dr. Douglas Hyde, Mr. (afterwards Professor) John MacNeill,
and others had founded the Gaelic League, a purely non-political
body, which had for its primary purpose the preservation and spread
of the Irish language, but which also brought Irish history, music,
and dancing within its ambit, as well as the fostering of native in-
dustries. The Gaelic League never had anything of a popular appeal,
but those who joined it came under a spell which is not easy to des-
cribe. They were mostly young, and the nascent patriotism which
had brought them within the circle grew and flourished in an Irish-
Ireland atmosphere very different from that to which their elders had
been accustomed. Probably the bulk of them never obtained any real
mastery over Irish, which is a difficult language; and it is a curious
but little-known fact that, of those who did, comparatively few be-
came extremists in the political sense after 1921. But the Gaelic
League marks a real national renaissance, and many of the leading
political figures of the present day were members of it at one time or
another. •''Complementary to the Gaelic League was the Gaelic
Athletic Association, founded in 1884, which fostered national games
and pastimes.

Inevitably, most of the members of the Gaelic League became
followers of the political gospel which began to be preached by
Arthur Griffith early in the twentieth century. Intellectually, Griffith
stood head and shoulders over the political figures of bis time. He
was a man imbued with an intense love of his country, utterly unsel-
fish, and having in him nothing of the fanaticism or insincerity
of the demagogue. His policy was one of national self-reliance, ex-
pressed in the political sphere by abstention from the British Parlia-
ment. Inspired by what had been accomplished in Hungary by
Francis Deak, he believed that Irish independence could be achieved
if the people elected members who would turn their backs on West-
minster and meet in Dublin as a parliament, adopting a policy of
passive resistance to English rule. He was not an advocate of physical
force. For the furtherance of the abstentionist policy, Griffith founded
D

34 THE PRELUDE TO THE TREATY OF 1921

in 1905 the organization known as Sinn Fdin. This means ‘Ourselves’,
and not, as sometimes stated, ‘Ourselves alone’; it is the exact
equivalent of the French ‘nous-memes’. In his weekly journals,
United Ireland and later Sinn Fdin, Griffith preached this doctrine in
a polemical English the like of which had not been >vritten in Ireland
since the days of Swift. They had a very small circulation, however,
and if Griffith had stood for Parliament it is unlikely that he would
have received more than a few hundred votes in any constituency.
Even his name would have been unknown to most of the electors.'

Operating in the background, in conditions of the profoundest
secrecy, was the Irish Republican Brotherhood, having for its object
the overthrow of the British Government in Ireland by force of
arms. At the time of the introduction of the Home Rule Bill in 1912,
this organization was extremely weak, and had been so for many
years. The British Empire was at the height of its power, and a policy
of violence against it seemed ridiculous. English rule in Ireland had
ceased to be oppressive, the people were contented, and, on the
whole, prosperous, and they placed their faith in the Parliamentary
Party. Moreover, the members of the Brotherhood came under the
general ban of the Catholic Church against secret societies.

If the enthusiasm of the Nationalists for such an anaemic form of
self-government as the Bill of 1912 seems surprising, the lengths to
which the Orange and Protestant minority in Ulster were prepared to
go in resisting it must appear even more so. In 1912 the Ulster Cove-
nant had been extensively signed in the province, pledging resistance
to the death. In 1913 there were frequent armed parades of Ulster
Volunteers, and a provisional government was set up in Belfast, with
Sir Edward Carson, K.C., a Dublin man, at its head. Leading English
soldiers and politicians, including Sir F. E. Smith, K.C., crossed over
to take a hand in the military preparations. Threats were made to kick
the King’s Crown into the Boyne if any attempt were made to coerce
Ulster.

The Ulster Volunteers were armed to resist a prospective Act of
Parliament. On the 25th November 1913 the Irish Volunteers, then
unarmed, were formed in Dublin to uphold it. The British Govern-
ment immediately imposed a ban on the importation of arms into
Ireland. On the 24th April 1914 a cargo of rifles from the Continent
for the Ulster Volunteers was landed at Lame, north of Belfast, in
open defiance of the ban, with the police looking on. On the 26th July
a similar cargo was run in to Howth, County Dublin, for the Irish
Volunteers. A company of British soldiers was sent out from the

JOHN REDMOND’S DECLARATION 35

capital to meet the returning Volunteers, and attempted unsuccess-
fully to disarm them. There were no serious casualties. When the
soldiers arrived back in Dublin, stones were thrown at them in
Bachelors’ Walk. The troops fired on the crowd and four civilians
were killed and thirty-seven wounded.

It was in this tense atmosphere of impending civil war that the
Great War broke out. Indeed, it is now generaily believed that the
Kaiser was considerably influenced by the feeling that the British
Government had its hands full in Ireland. 1 In the previous June Mr.
John Redmond, who had held aloof from the Volunteer movement
at the beginning, obtained virtual control of it by the addition of his
nominees to the Provisional Committee, and the accession of the
Irish Parliamentary Party was welcomed in a manifesto to the Volun-
teers signed by Mr. John MacNeill and published in the Irish Review
of that month. The war enthusiasm in Ireland was intense, and Mr.
Redmond at once promised the Irish Volunteers for the defence of
Ireland, whereby the British Army stationed in Ireland would be re-
leased for active service. ‘ For this purpose’, he said, * armed Nationa-
list Catholics in the South will be only too glad to join arms with the
armed Protestant Ulstermen in the North.’ 2 Ulster had won, how-
ever. The Government of Ireland Act received the King’s Assent
on the 18th September 1914, but on the same date there reached the
Statute Book the Suspensory Act, 1914, which suspended its opera-
tion (and also the operation of the Welsh Church Act) until twelve
months from the date of enactment, or, if the War was not then
ended, until such later date (not being later than the end of the War)
as might be fixed by His Majesty by Order-in-Council.

Mr. Redmond’s declaration was, of course, anathema to those
who had originally founded the Irish Volunteers. None of them had
any sympathy with parliamentarianism, and the members of the
original executive were mostly also members of the Irish Republican
Brotherhood. By November 1914 the movement had split into two,
the vast majority following Mr. Redmond, with the title of the
National Volunteers, and the old nucleus maintaining a separate
existence with the original title. Thousands of Irish Nationalists, both
National Volunteers and others, joined the Irish regiments in the
British Army and fought gallantly in France, Gallipoli, and else-
where; but Redmond's request that a special Irish division should

1 For extracts from speeches by Orangemen and English Conservative politi-
cians, and their effect on German opinion, see The Complete Grammar of
Anarchy, compiled by J. J. Horgan (Nisbet, 1919).

2 House of Commons Debates , Ixv, 1829.

36 THE PRELUDE TO THE TREATY OF 1921

be recruited under Irish officers for service in Europe was refused by
Lord Kitchener and the War Office. It was evident that any conces-
sions to Ireland’s distinctive nationality were taboo.

As soon as war broke out the Irish Republican Brotherhood de-
cided upon an insurrection, using the Irish Volunteers as their instru-
ment. In 1915 envoys were sent to the United States to get in touch
with the allied Irish-American organization, known as Clan-na-Gael,
and to collect funds. In the same year Sir Roger Casement, an Ulster
Protestant of profound Nationalist sympathies, endeavoured with-
out much success to recruit an Irish Brigade from among the priso-
ners of war in Germany. At home, the Irish Volunteers continued
their week-end route marches in the Dublin mountains and else-
where, and one of the songs they sang on the march was ‘A Soldier’s
Song’, which afterwards became the national anthem of the Irish
Free State.

Early in 1916 the Rising was timed for Easter week of that year.
There never was any expectation that it would succeed in the material
sense, but Patrick Pearse, one of the leaders of the Volunteers, and
James Connolly, a Labour leader and internationalist, who was head
of a smaller band of Dublin men called the Citizen Army, were both
convinced that a ‘blood sacrifice’ was necessary if the Irish nation
was to survive. Parades and manoeuvres of the Irish Volunteers were
publicly announced for Easter Sunday, the 23rd April, but only
those in the Irish Republican Brotherhood knew that an insurrection
was to take place. There were two miscarriages in Holy Week. Sir
Roger Casement landed from a German submarine on the Kerry
coast, with the object of trying to prevent the Rising on the ground
that no substantial help could be expected from Germany; 1 he was
arrested by the police and taken to London. The German auxiliary
cruiser Libau, disguised as a Norwegian tramp steamer and renamed
the Aud, carrying a cargo of arms and ammunition, was escorted by
a British cruiser towards Cork Harbour, but just outside that port her
crew hoisted the German flag and blew her up. Professor MacNeill,
the head of the Volunteers, did not know until the middle of the week
that an insurrection was planned. He regarded it as a blunder, and on
the Saturday he issued an order cancelling the parades. For this rea-
son the Rising was virtually confined to Dublin.

At noon on Easter Monday the General Post Office was occupied
as the headquarters of the insurgents, the tricolour flag of green,
white, and orange was run up, and a proclamation was issued,
1 Gwynn, The Life and Death of Roger Casement (1930), Part IV.

CASEMENT’S SPEECH FROM THE DOCK 37
couched in strangely moving terms, declaring an Irish Republic ‘in
the name of God and of the dead generations’. There were seven
signatories, each one of whom knew that he was signing his death
warrant. Other buildings were occupied at strategic points, and heavy
fighting took place between the insurgents and the British troops in
various parts of the city, with casualties on both sides. The courage
of these few hundred men can only be described as sublime. They
held out for six days until, surrounded and hopelessly outnumbered,
they surrendered unconditionally on the Saturday afternoon.

The insurrection was at first regarded with lively detestation by the
citizens of Dublin and in the country generally. Then came the after-
math. The seven signatories of the proclamation, and eight others,
were shot at intervals between the 3rd and the 12th May, by order of
British Courts Martial. Before the shots of the last firing-squad rang
out, public opinion had turned completely round. Any Irishman with
a spark of national feeling in him regarded these executions as the
murder in cold blood of gallant, chivalrous men who had borne
themselves as heroes.

The same sentiment was awakened by the execution of Roger
Casement in Pentonville Prison on the following 3rd August. His
prosecution on a charge of treason was conducted by the Attorney-
General (the Rt. Hon. F. E. Smith, K.C., afterwards Lord Chancel-
lor), who had taken a leading part in the fomenting of armed opposi-
tion to the Home Rule Act. Casement alluded to the fact in the
remarkable speech which he delivered from the dock after his con-
viction (29th June 1916) :

‘If,- as the right honourable gentleman, the present Attorney-
General, asserted in a speech at Manchester, Nationalists would
neither fight for Home Rule nor pay for it, it was our duty to show
him that we knew how to do both. . . . The difference between us was
that the Unionist champions chose a path they felt would lead to the
Woolsack, while I went a road that I knew must lead to the dock.
And the event proves both were right. The difference between us was
that my “treason” was based on a ruthless sincerity that forced me
to attempt in time and season to carry out in action what I said in
word — whereas their treason lay in verbal incitements that they knew
need never be made good in their bodies.’ 1

Mr. De Valera took part in the Rising as a battalion commander,
showing as great courage as any and more tactical ability than most.
He was condemned to death and would have been shot but for the
1 Gwynn, The Life and Death of Roger Casement, pp. 417, 418.

38 THE PRELUDE TO THE TREATY OF 1921

fact that he was an American citizen, having been born in New York.
Mr. Cosgrave was also in the fight and was among a batch who were
sentenced to death but reprieved. They,, and scores of others, were
deported to penal servitude in England. Hundreds more were in-
terned in Wales. Arthur Griffith, who had not been in favour of the
Rising, was arrested and lodged in Reading Gaol.

In February 1917 Count Plunkett, one of whose sons had been
executed, stood as an abstentionist candidate at a by-election in Ros-
common and defeated the nominee of the Parliamentary Party. The
following May another abstentionist, who was in gaol, scored a simi-
lar victory in Longford. It looked as if the tide was beginning to turn
against Mr. Redmond. On the 21st May the Prime Minister (Mr.
Lloyd George) announced in the House of Commons that the
Government had decided to summon immediately a convention of
representative Irishmen in Ireland to submit to the British Govern-
ment and Parliament a constitution for the future government of
Ireland within the Empire. He mentioned the fact that similar
schemes had succeeded in Canada, Australia, and South Africa, and
said that the time had come for Ireland to try her own hand at ham-
mering out an instrument of government for her own people. He
4 dded that the Government accepted responsibility for giving legis-
lative effect to the report of the convention, provided that there was
substantial agreement. Mr. Redmond declared that for the first time

in her history Ireland had been asked to settle these problems for
herself. 1 Sinn F&n, on the other hand, declined participation on the

grounds that the convention was not elected by the people of Ireland
and that it was not free to declare for absolute independence.

The Irish Convention, as it is called, met on the 25th July 1917 in
Dublin and elected the late Sir Horace Plunkett as its chairman. It

was fully representative of Unionist and moderate Nationalist opin-
ion, North and South, and the late George Russell (AE) and Mr. E.
MacLysaght held what might be called an unofficial watching brief
for Sinn F6in. They both resigned shortly before the Convention sub-
mitted its Report. It is fashionable nowadays to deride the Conven-
tion, but it had the support of the Catholic Church, and its ablest
member on the Nationalist side — perhaps themost statesmanlike mem-
ber of all was the Most Rev. Dr. O’Donnell, Bishop of Raphoe and
subsequently Cardinal Archbishop of Armagh. ‘If the Convention
fails , said Cardinal Logue, ‘all is chaos.’ He was to prove a true
prophet.

1 House of Commons Debates, xciii, 1995-2025.

THE CLARE ELECTION 39

In order that the Convention might meet in an atmosphere of
peace and goodwill the men imprisoned in England since the Rising
of 1916 were released, and arrived back in Ireland on the 18th June.
The gesture had exactly the opposite effect. There was a triumphal
procession from Kingstown (later named Dun Laoghaire, and popu-
larly called Dunleary), headed by Mr. De Valera, who was now the
hero of the populace. On the 11th July there was a by-election in
Clare, caused by the death of Major William Redmond (brother of
John Redmond), who had been killed in action in France. Mr. De
Valera was the Sinn Fdin candidate, and his Nationalist opponent
was Mr. Patrick Lynch, K.C., who was later to become Attorney-
General in Mr. De Valera’s Government. In this campaign the Irish
Volunteers appeared in public for the first time since the Rising.

Mr. De Valera triumphed in Clare, polling 5,010 votes as against
2,035 cast for Mr. Lynch . The country was moving faster than the capi-
tal, however, for only a week earlier a Nationalist was returned un-
opposed in South County Dublin, where Sinn F6in did not even put
up a candidate. Close on Mr. De Valera’s victory came a similar suc-
cess in Kilkenny, where Mr. Cosgrave easily defeated his Nationalist
opponent (10th August). In Mr. De Valera’s speeches both before and
after the Clare election we can discern signs of that intransigence
which was later to be so marked a feature of his political career. Thus,
in a victory speech in Dublin on the 12th July, he said he ‘did not
believe in mincing matters, and if Ulster stood in the way of the .
attainment of Irish freedom Ulster should be coerced’. 1 One may
well imagine that the effect of such utterances upon the Ulster
Unionist members of the Irish Convention would be merely to stiffen
their resistance to any form of Home Rule.

Sinn F6in was obviously becoming a force to be reckoned with,
and so its Annual Convention, held in public on the 25th October,
was regarded with a good deal of interest. Arthur Griffith had been
president of the organization since the beginning, but on this occa-
sion there were rival candidates in the persons of Mr. De Valera and
Count Plunkett, the former being put forward by the extreme element.
G ri ffith at once announced that he retired in favour of Mr. De
Valera, whereupon Count Plunkett did likewise; and Mr. De Valera
was unanimously elected president of Sinn F&n. If, as is said to have
been the case, Griffith was certain of election in case of a contest,
he showed extraordinary magnanimity in thus handing over to
another the headship of an organization which he had founded
1 Irish Independent , 13 July 1917.

40 THE PRELUDE TO THE TREATY OF 1921
and which, after years of obscurity, was now nearing its hour of
triumph.

A few days later, at a secret convention of the Irish Volunteers,
Mr. De Valera was elected president of that body also. These two
events, taken together, tended to show that if Sinn F&n succeeded in
ousting the parliamentarians its policy would not be Griffith’s old
policy of abstention from Westminster plus passive resistance. Mr. De
Valera was not, however, a member of the Irish Republican Brother-
hood, which was contrary to his religious principles.

At the beginning of 1918 there was still a reasonable chance that
the Nationalist Party would put up a successful resistance to Sinn
F6in, which had no practical policy. On the 6th March John Red-
mond died ; he was a great leader and a great gentleman, to whom
history will in time accord his due. At the resulting by-election in
Waterford his son Captain William Redmond, a serving officer in
France, easily defeated the Sinn Fdin candidate. Two other by-elec-
tions occurred about this time, in Armagh (February) and Tyrone
(April), and Sinn Fdin was worsted in both.

Meantime, the Irish Convention had completed its labours, and its
Report was signed on the 8th April 1918. 1 It is a voluminous docu-
ment, and the chairman (Sir Horace Plunkett) could claim with truth
that ‘a larger measure of agreement has been reached upon the prin-
ciple and details of Irish self-government than has ever yet been
attained’. It is true that there were numerous reservations and sepa-
rate minority reports. At the same time, there is no doubt whatever
that a practicable scheme for Irish autonomy, under a single parlia-
ment, could have been evolved from the recommendations of the
Convention — but for one factor, the uncompromising hostility of
the Ulster Unionist members. At that time the British Empire was
probably in greater peril than at any time else during the War.
Ludendorff had broken through in the west, and on the 13th April
Haig issued his historic ‘backs to the wall’ message to the troops.
By joining with the Nationalists and the Southern Unionists in ac-
cepting, with proper safeguards, an all-Ireland parliament, the
Ulstermen would have removed an outstanding threat to the Empire.
But they refused to do so.

The powers of the Senate proposed by the Irish Convention
were similar to those contained in the Act of 1914. As regards

the personnel, there were to be sixty-four members, made up as
follows:

1 Cd. 9019 (1918) (vol. x, p. 697).

THE CONSCRIPTION ISSUE
The Lord Chancellor of Ireland 1

Archbishops or bishops of the Catholic Church 4

Archbishops or bishops of the Church of Ireland 2

Representative of the General Assembly (Presbyterian) 1

Lord Mayor of Dublin 1

Lord Mayor of Belfast 1

Lord Mayor of Cork 1

Resident Irish Peers elected by their fellow Peers 15

Nominated by the Lord Lieutenant:

Irish Privy Councillors 4

Representatives of learned institutions 3

Other persons 4

Representatives of commerce and industry 15

Representatives of Labour (one for each province) 4

Representatives of county councils (two for each province) 8

Mr. Lloyd George at once announced that the British Government
would introduce legislation to implement the Report of the Conven-
tion. At the same time lie introduced on the 9th April, and passed
through the House of Commons in seven days, a Bill to apply con-
scription to Ireland. Conscription had been in force for more than a
year in Great Britain, but the military situation now made it neces-
sary to extend the age limit to fifty. The point of view of the British
Government was that this proposal could not be carried if recruiting
in Ireland remained on a voluntary basis. Moreover, large numbers
of men of military age, contemptuously termed ‘fly boys’ by the Irish,
had crossed over from the neighbouring island for the purpose of
avoiding conscription. On the other hand, the Irish are as fond of
fighting as most people, and the Nationalists had volunteered in at
least equal proportions to the Orangemen of Ulster. Some who were
pro-Ally but would not fight for England had enlisted under the
French flag. But the proposal to conscribe Irishmen for service in the
British Army was as fantastic as any that could be imagined. Even
before Easter Week, 1936, it would have been impracticable, but by
1918 it was sheer lunacy. It could never have been enforced and the
view held in Ireland was that it was put forward only for the purpose
of side-tracking the Report of the Irish Convention.

Mr. John Dillon, the veteran Irish statesman, had been elected to
the chairmanship of the Parliamentary Party following the death of
Mr. Redmond. The Conscription Bill having been carried in the

42 THE PRELUDE TO THE TREATY OF 1921

teeth of Nationalist opposition, he and his followers abandoned
Westminster and returned to Ireland to carry on the fight at home.The
Catholic Hierarchy, the Nationalists, Sinn Fdin, the Irish Volunteers
and Labour joined together in a nation-wide campaign of resistance.

At one blow Mr. Lloyd George had achieved the ruin of the
Nationalist Party. On the 19th April, only three days after the pas-
sage of the Conscription Bill by the Commons, a by-election was held
in the King’s County. Dr. Patrick MacCartan, one of the ablest and
most high-minded of Irish Republicans, was returned unopposed.
Mr. Lloyd George had also ensured the success of the policy of phy-
sical force. Conscription was equivalent to a declaration of war, and
the only men in a position to take up the challenge were the Irish
Volunteers.

To clear the way for the conscription drive, the police and military
conducted a midnight round-up of the leaders on the 17th May, and
Messrs. Griffith, De Valera, Cosgrave, and close on a hundred others
were transported to England, where they were interned. The pretext
was that they were plotting with Germany, and the Viceroy (Lord
French) issued a proclamation calling on ‘loyal subjects of His
Majesty’ to ‘suppress this treasonable conspiracy and to defeat the
treacherous attempt of the Germans to defame the honour of Irish-
men for their own ends’. This alleged German plot was a pure fabri-
cation. The Commander-in-Chief of the British Forces in Ireland at
that time was the late General Sir Bryan Mahon, and if anyone was
fully informed on the subject it would be he. Sir Bryan once told me
in conversation that he did not believe a word of it, and was satisfied
that it was a myth.

The threat of conscription persisted, but the British Government
was powerless to enforce it, and the result was to strengthen Sinn
Fein and to swell the ranks of the Irish Volunteers. On the 20th June
Arthur Griffith, then in gaol, easily defeated the Nationalist candi-
date at a by-election in East Cavan. Sinn Fdin, the Irish Volunteers,
the Gaelic League, and other organizations were ‘suppressed’ in
July, and went from strength to strength. Other leaders, chief of
whom was the redoubtable Michael Collins, stepped into the gap to
carry on the work of those arrested and interned.

Then came the end of the W ar and the general election of December
1918, when Sinn F&n reaped its reward and the British Government
got its deserts. In England, this was the ‘coupon’ election and the
c ef slogan was Hang the Kaiser ’. In Ireland, the issue was national
resurgence, and nothing less. The number of constituencies had been

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 43

increased by two under the Redistribution of Seats (Ireland) Act,
1918. In many of them Sinn Fein was unopposed. The result was as
follows:

Sinn F6in

Nationalists

Unionists

105

Outside of Ulster, the Nationalists held only one seat (Waterford :
Captain Redmond) and the Unionists had only three seats (Rath-
mines, County Dublin : Sir Maurice Dockrell ,* and Dublin Univer-
sity: Mr. Samuels and Sir Robert Woods). (Actually, Sir Robert
Woods was returned as an Independent ; he was a distinguished sur-
geon, unconnected with politics.) On the one hand, the Nationalist
Party and constitutional methods were dead beyond hope of resur-
rection ; on the other, one-fourth of the entire representation, con-
centrated in one area of the country, had declared once more for
union with England. Nationalist Ireland had not, of course, declared
for a republic. What the people had done was to give their reply to
English repression. It ‘was not a victory of conviction, but of
emotion’. 1

On the 21st January 1919 such of the Sinn Fdin members as were
not in prison or evading arrest met publicly in Dublin as Dail
£ireann(which means ‘the Assembly of Ireland’). The roll was called
of the whole 105 members, including the Unionists (Sir Edward
Carson, Sir James Craig, and others) and the six Nationalists. All
these were, of course, absent. A declaration of independence was
then read in Irish, French, and English, containing the following:
‘We, the elected Representatives of the ancient Irish people in
National Parliament assembled, do, in the name of the Irish nation,
ratify the establishment of the Irish Republic and pledge ourselves
and our people to make this declaration effective by every means at
our command.’ 2

At a private session of the Dail on the 1st April Mr. De Valera
(who had escaped from Lincoln Prison) was elected President of the
D&il — not President of the Republic, which never seems to have had
a president — and a Cabinet was constituted. Shortly afterwards, Mr.
De Valera left for the United States, where he engaged in propaganda,

' not arriving back in Ireland till the end of 1920.

1 P. S. O’Hegarty, The Victory of Sinn Fein (1924), p. 31.

8 Proceedings of First Ddil, pp. 14-17.

44 THE PRELUDE TO THE TREATY OF 1921

Arthur Griffith’s policy of Sinn F&n had meant abstention from
Westminster and passive resistance. Whether such a policy was now
practicable may be open to question. At all events the policy adopted
was something very different. A republic had been declared, and the
Irish Volunteers became the army of that republic or, in the popular
phrase, the Irish Republican Army. The new situation was empha-
sized by Cathal Brugha (Charles Burgess), the Secretary for Defence
in the l3ri.il Cabinet :

‘He pointed out that the Volunteers had now become the Army of
a lawfully constituted Government, elected by the people, and' were
entitled morally and legally, when on the execution of their duty, to
slay the officials and agents of the foreign invader who was waging
war upon our native Government. He also declared that we were
entitled to put to death all spies, informers, and all Irishmen who
acted as agents of the foreigners in the warfare against us.’ 1

So began the Anglo-Irish war, which endured at a gradually in-
creasing tempo until the Truce of the 11th July 1921. It was a cam-
paign of an unusual type, with, on the one side, soldiers and police
well equipped with arms, and, on the other, flying columns of men,
ill-armed and not in uniform, who attacked and burnt police barracks
and engaged in ambushes and other forms of guerrilla activity.
Great heroism, and sometimes great chivalry, were shown by the
Irish Republican Army, but there were ugly incidents as well. In the
early summer of 1920 the Royal Irish Constabulary (nearly all the
original members of which were Irishmen) was reinforced by the
Auxiliary Police, nicknamed the Black and Tans. Their record of
outrage, arson, and murder is well known.

The following autumn, Mr. Lloyd George’s Government intro-
duced the Government of Ireland Bill, which became law on the
23rd December 1920, and which partitioned Ireland into Northern
Ireland (the six counties of north-east Ulster) and Southern Ireland
(the remaining twenty-six counties), ‘Southern’ Ireland contained the
most northerly county of all (Donegal), but the nomenclature helped
to foster the belief that Ireland is split into two roughly equal halves
of Orangemen and Nationalists. Two of the six counties (Tyrone
and Fermanagh) contained substantial Nationalist majorities and
could never have been included in Northern Ireland if a plebiscite
had been taken. The Senate of Southern Ireland (sixty-four members)
was substantially that recommended by the Irish Convention for the
whole of Ireland. The Senate of Northern Ireland was to consist of
1 B£aslaf, Michael Collins , vol. i, p. 270.

GENERAL ELECTIONS OF MAY 1921 45

the Lord Mayor of Belfast and the Mayor of Deny, ex officio, and
twenty-four other members, elected by the House of Commons of
Northern Ireland. The Act made provision for the possible unification
of the country by agreement between the two parts of it; but as the
Orangemen had been prepared to fight sooner than go into a parlia-
ment with John Redmond it did not seem likely that they would
voluntarily go into another with Mr. De Valera. Northern Ireland
consented, more or less under protest, to work the Act. The rest of
the country — Sinn F6in, Nationalist, and Unionist — was unanimously
against partition, and the Act became a dead letter in the twenty-six
counties.

A general election for Southern Ireland and another for Northern
Ireland were held in May 1921. In Southern Ireland Sinn F&n was
everywhere unopposed, the only other members being the four re-
turned for Dublin University. In Northern Ireland, out of a total of
fifty-two seats, the Unionists obtained forty (including the four
University seats) and the Nationalists and Sinn Fein each obtained
six. The Nationalists returned one member in each of the six consti-
tuencies (Belfast, Antrim, Derry, Armagh, Down, ,.and Tyrone-
Fermanagh) and Sinn Fdin obtained one seat in Derry, Armagh, and
Down and three seats in Tyrone-Fermanagh. Thus, apart from the
University, the anti-partition bloc had one-third of the representation.

By this time the struggle was drawing towards its close. Each side
had had about enough, and English public opinion was becoming
increasingly vocal against the excesses of the Black and Tans, When
opening the Northern Ireland Parliament in Belfast on the 22nd
June the King made a strong appeal for peace in a speech now known
to have been drafted by General Smuts. This was followed up two
days later by a letter from Mr. Lloyd George to Mr. De Valera, re-
questing a conference. The latter accepted on the 8th July, and on
the 10th July a truce was signed between representatives of the Irish
and British armies, to come into force at noon the next day. The news
was received with intense enthusiasm, for everyone knew that,
though it might be called a truce, the war with England was at an
end.

The conference between Mr. De Valera and Mr. Lloyd George
' took place in London (14th— 21st July), and came to nothing. A long
and inconclusive correspondence followed. At length, on the 29th
September, Mr. Lloyd George sent to Mr. De Valera an invitation to
a conference in London, in the course of which he said :

‘In spite of their sincere desire for peace, and in spite of the more

46 THE PRELUDE TO THE TREATY OF 1921

conciliatory tone of your last communication, they [the British
Government] cannot enter a conference upon the basis of this corres-
pondence. Notwithstanding your personal assurance to the contrary,
which they much appreciate, it might be argued in future that the ac-
ceptance of a conference on this basis had involved them in a recogni-
tion which no British Government can accord [i.e. the recognition
of the Irish delegates as the representatives of a sovereign and inde-
pendent State]. On this point they must guard themselves against
any possible doubt. . . . The position taken up by His Majesty’s
Government is fundamental to the existence of the British Empire,
and they cannot alter it We feel that conference, not correspon-

dence, is the most practical and hopeful way to an understanding such
as we ardently desire to achieve. We therefore send herewith a fresh
invitation to a conference in London on the 1 1th October, where we
can meet your delegates as spokesmen of the people whom you
represent, with a view to ascertaining how the association of Ireland
with the community of nations known as the British Empire may
best be reconciled with Irish national aspirations.’

Mr. De Valera replied on the following day : ‘ Our respective posi-
tions have been stated and are understood, and we agree that con-
ference, not correspondence, is the most practical and hopeful way to
an understanding. We accept the invitation and our delegates will
meet you in London on the date mentioned “to explore every possi-
bility of settlement by personal discussion”.’ 1 <

The following were accordingly nominated as Envoys Plenipoten-
tiary ‘to negotiate and conclude on behalf of Ireland, with the repre-
sentatives of His Britannic Majesty George V, a treaty or treaties of
settlement, association and accommodation between Ireland and the
community of nations known as the British Commonwealth ’ :

Arthur Griffith, Minister for Foreign Affairs (chairman)

Michael Collins, Minister for Finance
Robert C. Barton, Minister for Economic Affairs
Edmund J. Duggan
George Gavan Duffy.

After protracted negotiations, ‘Articles of Agreement for a Treaty
between Great Britain and Ireland’ were signed on the 6th December
1921 between these five plenipotentiaries and seven members of the
British Cabinet, headed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Lloyd George).
Ireland received the status of a Dominion within the British Com-
1 Cmd. 1470, 1502, and 1539 (1921) (vol. xxix, pp. 401-15).

CONCLUSION OF THE TREATY 47

monwealth of Nations, with the title of the Irish Free State, and she
had the right to maintain her own army. On the debit side, it was pro-
vided that Northern Ireland could opt out within a specified period,
the Irish Free State was made liable for its proportionate share of the
public debt of the United Kingdom, and the British Government
was accorded certain harbour and other facilities which it deemed
necessary for purposes of defence.

CHAPTER II

THE FIGHT FOR THE TREATY

Popular enthusiasm for the Treaty— Attitude of Catholic Hierarchy
—Procedure for establishment of Provisional Government— Mr. De
Valera declares against the Treaty— The Treaty before the Dail—

‘ Document No. 2'— Griffith's declaration— The Dail approves the
Treaty — Mr. De Valera's resignation and subsequent attitude — Provi-
sional Government set up — Telegrams from the Pope — The British be-
gin evacuation — Outbreaks of violence — Mr. De Valera's efforts to
avoid an appeal to the people — His speeches in Munster — Repudiation
of the Dail by a section of the Irish Republican Army — Seizure of the
Four Courts — Pronouncement of the Catholic Hierarchy — Mr. De
Valera's contrary view — Continued efforts to prevent a decision by the
people — The Collins-De Valera Pact — The general election of June
1922 — The people declare for the Treaty — Civil War — Death of
Griffith and Collins — Stern condemnation of the Irregulars by the
Hierarchy — Mr. De Valera appointed ‘ President of the Republic ’ —
Resolution of approval of the Treaty purported to be rescinded — Deci-
sion not to appeal to Rome against the Hierarchy — The Pope's message
to the Governor-General.

The circumstances which surrounded the signing of the Treaty, and
the tragic events which succeeded it, have been dealt with in con-
siderable detail in volumes which have appeared in recent years ; but
certain facts of vital importance have too often been either insuffi-
ciently emphasized or ignored altogether. The first is the fact— for
which the evidence is overwhelming— that the vast majority of the
people were enthusiastically in favour of the Agreement which had
been secured by the plenipotentiaries. The second, which follows
from the first, is that Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins were never,
except in a secondary sense, protagonists of the Treaty ; their position

ATTITUDE OF CATHOLIC HIERARCHY 49

was that they were determined that no subtlety, casuistry, or threat
of force should deprive the people of their clear right to say by
whom, and under what instrument, they wished to be governed. The
third fact is that the Catholic Hierarchy were unanimously in favour
of acceptance; they had no concern with politics as such, but they
were, and are, the appointed custodians of Catholic faith and morals,
and they knew only too well that a continuance of the anarchic con-
ditions of the previous three years would result in a moral degenera-
tion of their flocks from which it would take generations to recover.

• Provision for the approval of the Treaty and for the bridging of
the interregnum was made by the instrument itself, the last two
Articles of which read as follows :

' ‘ 17. By way of provisional arrangement for the administration of
Southern Ireland during the interval which must elapse between the
date hereof and the constitution of a Parliament and Government of
the Irish Free State in accordance therewith, steps shall be taken
forthwith for summoning a meeting of members of Parliament
elected for constituencies in Southern Ireland since the passing of the
Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and for constituting a provisional
Government, and the British Government shall take the steps neces-
sary to transfer to such provisional Government the powers and
machinery requisite for the discharge of its duties, provided that
every member of such provisional Government shall have signified
in writing his or her acceptance of this instrument. But this arrange-
ment shall not continue in force beyond the expiration of twelve
months from the date hereof.

* 18, This instrument shall be submitted forthwith by His Majesty’s
Government for the approval of Parliament and by the Irish signa-
tories to a meeting summoned for the purpose of the members elected
to sit in the House of Commons of Southern Ireland, and if approved
shall be ratified by the necessary legislation.’

There is no mention here, or elsewhere in the Treaty, of the Diil,
which claimed to be the Parliament of the Republic of the whole of
Ireland. There was no serious difference of personnel, however, be-
tween the Dail and the Parliament of Southern Ireland. At the general
elections held in Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland in May 1921
the members elected in Southern Ireland bad all belonged to the Sinn
F€in Party, except the four members for Dublin University, who did
. not attend the D&il. None of the Unionists and Nationalists elected in
Northern Ireland recognized the Ddil, and, of the six Sinn F&n
members, all except one (Mr. John O’Mahony) were also elected for
E

50 THE FIGHT FOR THE TREATY

constituencies in Southern Ireland. Hence the effective representation
of the D&il at the time of the Treaty was virtually the same as that of
the Parliament of Southern Ireland minus the four members for
Dublin University : that is to say, 124 members, all of whom belonged
to Sinn Fdin.

A meeting of the Ddil was summoned for the 14th December. In-
stead of waiting for it, Mr. De Valera, the President of the D&il,
issued a pronunciatnento on the 8th, addressed ‘To the Irish People’,
in the course of which he said :

‘The terms of this Agreement are in violent conflict with the wishes
of the majority of this nation as expressed freely in successive elec-
tions during the past three years.

‘I feel it my duty to inform you immediately that I cannot recom-
mend the acceptance of this Treaty, either to Dail fiireann or the
country. In this attitude I am supported by the Ministers of Home
Affairs and Defence [Messrs. Stack and Brugha]. . . .

‘The great test of our people has come. Let us face it worthily
without bitterness and, above all, without recriminations. There is a
definite constitutional way of resolving our political differences— -let
us not depart from it, and let the conduct of the Cabinet in this
matter be an example to the whole nation.’ 1

This has been likened to throwing a torch into a powder magazine.
Certainly nobody could have so far suggested a method other than
the constitutional method for resolving political differences, for the
Treaty was as yet but two days old and this was the first public inti-
mation that such differences existed.

For the decision on a question of such grave national import, a
parliament less suitable than the Dfiil could hardly be imagined. It
was anything but a microcosm of the country, since Nationalists,
Farmers, Labour, and Southern Unionists were completely unrepre-
sented in it. Its members, who were all of one party, had been elected
unopposed as a gesture of defiance to England and of hostility to
partition at the height of the Black and Tan regime. Most of them
were fighting men, or youths, and the lists had been scrutinized at
Sinn F&n headquarters for the purpose of ensuring that none but
politically safe’ candidates should be adopted. 2 Moreover, some

may have had scruples about the oath which they had taken to the
Republic.

The public debate began on the 14th December, and the first to

*l ri % h Independent, 9 December 1921.

P. S. O Hegarty, The Victory of Sinn Fiin (1924), p. 75.

‘DOCUMENT NO. V 51

speak was Mr. De Valera. A small detail in his opening sentences was
revealing. Speaking in Irish he said; ‘My Irish is not as good as I
should like it to be. I am better able to express my thoughts in English,
and so I think that I had better speak wholly in English.’ He con-
tinued in English : ‘Some of the members do not know Irish, I think,
and consequently what I shall say will be in English.’ 1 He had a great
deal to say, alleging that the plenipotentiaries had exceeded their
instructions. Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins indignantly contro-
verted this charge, and, after an acrimonious discussion, during which
no attention appears to have been paid to the rules of order, the Dail
went into private session.

In the private session Mr. De Valera propounded his now famous
‘Document No. 2’ as an alternative to the Treaty. Except that the
Irish Free State is called Ireland and the term ‘association’ and its
cognates are used, there does not appear to be a great deal of diffe-
rence between the two instruments. Mr. Bdaslaf, who was a member
of the Ddil, published it as an Appendix to his Michael Collins, and
comments on it as follows: ‘The majority of the paragraphs are
identical, word for word, with those of the Treaty, and . . . where they
differ it is only a difference of phraseology. The British Empire, the
English King, liability for the English National Debt and for pen-
sions to English officials and police in Ireland, Partition, the granting
of English naval bases in Ireland — all are swallowed. Mr. De Valera
asked us to reject the Treaty, and agree unanimously to publish this
as our offered alternative to England.’ 2

There was no parliamentary oath in ‘Document No. 2’, but the
same writer states that Mr. De Valera had dictated the following oath
which he would be willing to take : ‘ I do swear to bear true faith and
allegiance to the Constitution of Ireland, and the Treaty of Associa-
tion of Ireland with the British Commonwealth of Nations, and to
recognize the King of Great Britain as Head of the Associated
States.’ 3

After three days in private session the Dail resumed in public on
the 19th December, and the Speaker immediately informed the
House that Mr. De Valera had now withdrawn ‘Document No. 2’
and that it ‘must be regarded as confidential until he brings his own
, proposal forward formally’. Arthur Griffith said: ‘Are my hands
to be tied by this document being withheld after we were discussing
it for two days?’ And Michael Collins added: ‘I as a public repre-
sentative cannot consent, if I am in a minority of one, in withholding
1 Treaty Debates, p. 7. 2 Vol. ii, p. 317. 3 Ibid., p. 316.

52. THE FIGHT FOR THE TREATY

from the Irish people my knowledge of what the alternative is.’ 1 Mr.
De Valera’s contention was that he had been prepared to stand on
the secret document, but that it would cease to be of value in the
absence of virtual unanimity. But he is precluded from this line of
argument by his subsequent conduct. In February 1923, when faced
with defeat in the Civil War, he resurrected ‘Document No. 2’ in a
statement to the Press Association, 2 and his Constitution of 1937
embodies the principle of ‘ external association \

After this preliminary skirmishing, Arthur Griffith formally moved :
‘That Ddil fiireann approves of the Treaty between Great Britain and
Ireland, signed in London on December 6th, 1921.’ In a supremely
able speech, stripped of rhetoric and meretricious argument, he com-
mended to the Parliament the document which he had signed.

*. . . By that Treaty I am going to stand, and every man with a
scrap of honour who signed it is going to stand. It is for the Irish
people — who are our masters, not our servants, as some think— it is
for the Irish people to say whether it is good enough. I hold that it
is, and that the Irish people — that ninety-five per cent of them believe
it to be good enough. . . .

‘The gentlemen on the other side are prepared to recognize the
King of England as head of the British Commonwealth. They are
prepared to go half in the Empire and half out. They are prepared to
go into the Empire for war and peace and treaties, and to keep out
for other matters, and that is what the Irish people have got to know
is the difference. Does all this quibble of words — because it is merely
a quibble of words — mean that Ireland is asked to throw away this
Treaty and go back to war? So far as my power or voice extends, not
one young Irishman’s life shall be lost on that quibble. We owe res-
ponsibility to the Irish people. . . .

‘Thomas Davis said: “Peace with England, alliance with England
to some extent, and, under certain circumstances, confederation with
England; but an Irish ambition, Irish hopes, strength, virtue and
rewards for the Irish.”

That is what we have brought back, peace with England, alliance
with England, confederation with England, an Ireland developing
her own life, carving out her own way of existence, and rebuilding
the Gaelic civilization broken down at the battle of Kinsale. I say
we have brought you that. I say we have translated Thomas Davis
mto the practical politics of the day. I ask then this DM1 to pass this
resolution, and I ask the people of Ireland, and the Irish people

1 Treaty Debates, pp. 19, 20. a Irish Independent, 17 February 1923.

ARTHUR GRIFFITH ON THE TREATY 53
everywhere, to ratify this Treaty, to end this bitter conflict of cen-
turies, to end it for ever, to take away that poison that has been
rankling in the two countries and ruining the relationship of good
neighbours. Let us stand as free partners, equal with England, and
make after seven hundred years the greatest revolution that has ever
been made in the history of the world — a revolution of seeing the
two countries standing, not apart as enemies, but standing together
as equals and as friends. I ask you, therefore, to pass this resolution.’ 1

After the motion had been seconded by General MacKeon, one of
the bravest and most chivalrous soldiers in the Anglo-Irish war, Mr.
Dc Valera followed with an impassioned speech. ‘Document No. 2’
had served its purpose in the private session, and he returned to the
Republic: ‘Did the Irish people think we were liars when we said that
we meant to uphold the Republic, which was ratified by the vote of
the people three years ago, and was further ratified — expressly ratified
— by the vote of the people at the elections last May?’ 2

The debate seemed interminable. On the 22nd December the Dail
adjourned over Christmas and resumed on the 3rd January. Next day
Mr. De Valera at last produced ‘Document No. 2’, but Arthur
Griffith protested that it showed material changes and it was referred
to as ‘ Document No. 3 ’. When the session opened on the 6th January
Mr. De Valera, speaking at great length, announced his resignation of
the Presidency of the Dail, and said that his resignation involved that
of the whole Cabinet. Having referred to his Irish upbringing, he said :
‘I know what I am talking about; and whenever I wanted to know
what the Irish people wanted I had only to examine my own heart and
it told me straight off what the Irish people wanted.’ He continued : ‘I
stand definitely for the Irish Republic as it was established — as it was
proclaimed in 1916 — as it was constitutionally established by the Irish
nation in 1919, and I stand for that definitely; and I will stand by no
policy whatever that is not consistent with that. Now if you re-elect
me [cries of “We will!”] — steady for a moment — I will have to have
the right to get a Cabinet that thinks with me so that we can be a
unified body. Next, I will have to have the full use of all the resources
of the Republic to defend the Republic — every resource and all the
material that is in the nation to defend it. If you elect me and you do
it by a majority I will throw out that Treaty— if we have a majority, if
this Cabinet goes down. Next, I will bring from our Cabinet a docu-
ment such as that [Document No. 2] and we will offer it to the British
people as a genuine peace Treaty — to the British peoples, not merely
1 Treaty Debates, pp. 20-3. - Ibid., p. 24.

THE FIGHT FOR THE TREATY
Lloyd George and his Government, but to all the States of the British

Commonwealth— of the British Empire. 1

If this strategy had succeeded, Mr. De Valera s personality, and
not the Treaty, would have been made the issue. After much argu*
ment, Griffith remarked: ‘Why we should be stopped in the middle
of this discussion and a vote taken on the personality of President
De Valera I don’t understand ; and I don’t think my countrymen
will understand it.’ Mr. De Valera replied: ‘I am sick and tired of
politics— so sick that no matter what happens I would go back to
private life. . . . If this House wants to take a vote on a straight issue
I don’t want to draw any red herring across. It is because I am
straight that I meet crookedness with straight dealing always.’ 2

The debate on the Treaty proceeded, and on the 7th January 1922
the vote was taken and the Treaty was approved by 64 votes to 57.
As a result, Mr. De Valera announced that he would resign the
Presidency of the Ddil, and he then broke down.

At the next meeting, two days later, he allowed himself to be pro-
posed as ‘President of the Republic’, and he made it plain that, if he
were elected, his Cabinet ‘would be composed for the time being of
those who stood definitely by the Republic’. 3 He said: ‘We are
finished with that Treaty as far as we are concerned. It has nothing
further to do with this House. We have not passed any Act of
Ratification of that Treaty. We have simply passed a resolution of
approval, which means that the Government of the Republic is not
going actively to interfere with those who are to complete that
Treaty. When they have completed that Treaty then they will have a
definite issue before the Irish people, and not till then, and I chal-
lenge them on that.’ 4

There would thus have been (1) a provisional government, com-
posed of Ministers who had accepted the Treaty and responsible to
the Ddil which had approved the Treaty; (2) a government of the
Republic, headed by Mr. De Valera and composed of men bitterly
opposed to the Treaty. It speaks volumes for Mr. De Valera’s ascen-
ancy oyer men of the type of which the Ddil was composed that this

^/™ feated by only two votes ( 60 t0 58). The following
y, Arthur Griffith was elected President of the Dail, but before the
was ^ en Mr. De Valera withdrew from the House with his
wasapproved 6 DeW ^ res ^ ent tben nom inated his Cabinet, which

3 Ibfd.fp fl 356! es,pp - 274 > 275 -

2 Ibid., p. 281.
4 Ibid., p. 353.

FORMAL RATIFICATION OF TREATY 55

The anti-Treaty party returned for the afternoon session, and
General Mulcahy, the new Minister for Defence, gave an assurance
that the Army would continue to be the Army of the Republic. This
meant, of course, pending the acceptance or rejection by the people of
the Treaty at a general election.

The Treaty had been confirmed and ratified by both Houses of
Parliament at Westminster on the 16th December 1921 ; it now re-
mained for the strict letter of Articles 17 and 18 to be fulfilled on the
Irish side. On the 14th January' 1922 a meeting was held of ‘the
members elected to sit in the House of Commons of Southern
Ireland’. It was attended by the pro-Treaty members of the Dail and
the four members for Dublin University, and resolutions were passed
(1) approving the Treaty and (2) setting up a Provisional Government
under the chairmanship of General Michael Collins.

The new regime was thus launched, and it started with the blessing
of the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XV dispatching two congratu-
latory telegrams, one to King George V and the other to the President
of the Dail. 1

The British now began to keep their part of the bargain by evacuat-
ing the country. On the 16th January Dublin Castle, for centuries the
nerve-centre of British Government in Ireland, was formally handed
over by the Viceroy (Lord FitzAlan) to General Collins and his col-
leagues of the Provisional Government. The British soldiers marched
out of the military barracks throughout the twenty-six county area
and the Irish soldiers marched in; the Union Jack was lowered and
the tricolour was hoisted in its stead. During one of his numerous
visits to London Collins signed a modus vivendi with Sir James Craig
(now Lord Craigavon) which might, in happier circumstances, have
paved the way to the ultimate unity of Ireland. 2

But the dark shadow of impending anarchy already loomed over
the country and it was deepened by what Kevin O’Higgins (a member
of both the Dail Cabinet and the Provisional Government) charac-
terized as ‘the concurrent lack of jurisdiction of Dail Fireann, the
Provisional Government and the British Government’. The impasse
could have been solved only by an early general election, and it was
the object of the opponents of the Treaty (who well knew what the
result would be) at all costs to prevent it. Also, if the British evacua-
tion could be stopped, the British Government might hold the Treaty
to be at an end. Accordingly, departing members of the British

1 Irish Times, 13 January 1922, and Treaty Debates, p. 391.

2 Bcaslal, Michael Collins, vol. ii, p. 358.

56 THE FIGHT FOR THE TREATY

forces had their arms seized and some of them were shot dead ; there
was bloodshed on the Northern Ireland border and the beginmng of
a religious war in Belfast. At a monster anti-Treaty meeting held in
O’Connell Street, Dublin, on the 12th February Mr. De Valera was
introduced by the chairman as ‘the President of the Republic’. 1 This
was an indication that the decision of the majority in the Ddil was
not recognized.

On the 22nd February Griffith and Collins, hard pressed and anx-
ious for peace, agreed that there should be no general election for
three months, and that the new Constitution, as well as the Treaty,
should then be submitted to the people. By this concession they
doubtless hoped to satisfy Mr. De Valera to some extent, to secure the
Provisional Government from open attack, and to stave off mutiny in
the Army. In the first Week of March there were murderous outrages
in Waterford, Tipperary, and Limerick. On the 6th March the city of
Limerick was occupied by anti-Treaty forces ; next day, troops loyal
to the Provisional Government arrived and a clash was averted only
by a hair’s breadth, the city being evacuated by both sides some days
later. On the 12th March Michael Collins addressed a public meeting
in Cork, and there was intimidatory shooting all round the platform.
‘If the incidents attendant upon to-day’s Treaty demonstration are a
foretaste of the election campaign,’ said a newspaper correspondent,
‘then Heaven help the country. ’ 2

Having obtained a postponement of the election, Mr. De Valera
next proposed that it ought to be held on a new register. On the 16th
March Arthur Griffith replied :

Were a new register begun now, an election would be impossible
for the next six months. This would suit the game of those who desire
to muzzle the Irish electorate, but I cannot be a party to any muzzling

I- agreed with you to place the Constitution simultaneously be-
fore the electorate with the Treaty. I agreed with you to postpone

e e action for three months. Now you attempt to raise a

election ’ 3 & ^ lSSU6 * ntended to further postpone or prevent an

i he dissident minority of the Ddil founde<

being si?n^ k° ^ t ^( Lea S ue °f the Republic), the announcemen

STS I • De Valera as *"“■* He «*» left for a tori
south, whore excrement was already at fever pitch. The fol

1 r. * * *

a { r ', s h Times, 13 February 1922
Insit Independent , 17 March 1922.

8 Ibid., 13 March 1922.

‘WADING THROUGH BLOOD’ SPEECHES 57

lowing extracts from his speeches on this tour arc quoted from con-
temporary newspaper reports.

At Dungarvan. County Waterford, on the 16th March: ‘The
Treaty . . . barred the way to independence with the blood of fellow-
irishmen. It was only by Civil War after this that they could get their
independence. ... If you don’t fight to-day, you will have to fight
to-morrow ; and 1 say. when you arc in a good fighting position, then
fight on.’ 1

At Carrick-on-Suir, County Tipperary, on the 17th March (Saint
Patrick’s Day), to a crowd which included seven hundred men of the
Irish Republican Army: * If the Treaty was accepted the fight for
freedom would still go on ; and the Irish people, instead of fighting
foreign soldiers, would have to fight the Irish soldiers of an Irish
Government set up by Irishmen. If the Treaty was not rejected, per-
haps it was over the bodies of the young men he saw around him that
day that the fight for Irish freedom may be fought.’ 2

At Thurlcs, County Tipperary, on the same day, at a meeting
largely composed of Volunteers, about two hundred of whom carried
rifles : * If they accepted the Treaty, and if the Volunteers of the future
tried to complete the work the Volunteers of the last four years had
been attempting, they would have to complete it, not over the bodies
of foreign soldiers, but over the dead bodies of their own country-
men. They would have to wade through Irish blood, through the
blood of the soldiers of the Irish Government, and through, perhaps,
the blood of some of the members of the Government in order to get
Irish freedom.’ 3

At Killarncy, County Kerry, on the 18th March, again in the
presence of armed men : * In order to achieve freedom, if our Volun-
teers continue, and I hope they will continue until the goal is reached,
if we continue on that movement which was begun when the Volun-
teers were started, and we suppose this Treaty is ratified by your
votes, then these men, in order to achieve freedom, will have, I said
yesterday, to march over the dead bodies of their own brothers. They
will have to wade through Irish blood.’ 4

Incidentally, it was in the Killarncy speech that Mr. Dc Valera
uttered the aphorism : ‘The people have never a right to do wrong.’

Even in a country by now inured to horrors, these four speeches
caused a shudder of dismay. At this lime the Sinn F6in Executive was
still in being, in spite of the split, and Arthur Griffith and Mr. Dc

= Ibid., 18 March 1922.

4 Ibid., 20 March 1922.

1 Irish Independent , 17 March 1922.
3 Ibid., 18 March 1922.

58 THE FIGHT FOR THE TREATY

Valera were members of it. According to Griffith’s friend Mr. Sedn
Milroy (afterwards Senator Milroy) Griffith said to him : ‘I shall not
sit in the same room with that man until he withdraws his incitement
to assassination.’ 1 The Irish Independent published two condemnatory
editorials on these speeches, and on the 23rd March it printed a letter
from Mr. De Valera, dated the previous day, in which they were
characterized as ‘villainous’ and ‘criminal malice’. He had been mis-

represented.

‘My argument was an answer to those who said that the London
Agreement gave us “freedom to achieve freedom”. I showed that,
instead of opening the way, it erected in the nation’s path two almost
impassable barriers :

‘(1) the nation’s own pledged word, and

‘(2) a native Government, bound to act in accordance with and to
secure, even by force, respect for that pledged word.’

In a footnote the editor defended the construction which had been
placed on Mr. De Valera’s words: ‘We believe it is the construction
which would be placed on them by thousands of others. . . . We hope
that in view of the above letter Mr. De Valera will use his best efforts
to discountenance any attempt at civil war in the future.’

Towards the end of March the mutinous section of the Army defi-
nitely repudiated the authority of the Ddil, one of the ringleaders
being one Rory O’Connor, who termed himself Commandant-
General. 2 Mr. De Valera did not condemn this secession. In a letter
dated the 13th September 1922, captured by the Government and
alleged to have been written by Mr. De Valera '(the attribution to
whom has never been disavowed), the writer states that ‘ Rory O’Con-
nor’s unfortunate repudiation of the Dail which I was so foolish as to
defend, even to a straining of my own views, in order to avoid the
appearance of a split, is now the greatest barrier that we have.’ The
. further comment is made : ‘We cannot, as in the time of the war with
the British, point to authority derived from the vote of the majority

of the people. We will be turned down definitely by the electorate in a
few months’ time in any case.’ 3 *

On the 6th April, at Dunleary, Mr. De Valera repudiated the Pro-
Government : When Dail Eireann took its rightful place as
e overnment of the nation, then they would have a stable Govern-
ment; but if they attempted to do that which they legally could not
o, o set up a Provisional Government as the Government of the

3 S T e ! , ° te . Debates, xvii, 1186.

Irish Independent, 16 August 1923.

2 Irish Times, 29 March 1922.

PRONOUNCEMENT OF HIERARCHY 59

country, that Government would not be obeyed. That Government
would not function.’ 1

Shortly after midnight on the 13th April the Four Courts (the
Courts of Justice in Dublin) were seized by Rory O'Connor and the
Irregulars, as they were now called. This was in Holy Week. On Good
Friday members of the Labour Party, among them Mr. J. T. O’Farrcll
(afterwards Senator O’Farrcli), interviewed Mr. De Valera. Senator
O’Farrcll subsequently recalled the occasion in a speech in the Senate.

‘We spent two hours pleading with him then, with a view to avert-
ing the impending calamity of the civil war, and the only statement
he made that has abided with me since as to what his views were was
this: “The majority have no right to do wrong.” He repeated that
at least a dozen times in the course of the interview, in response to
statements made to him to the effect that the Treaty had been ac-
cepted by a majority, and that, consequently, it was his duty to
observe the decision of the majority until it was reversed. He refused
to accept it on the ground that the majority had no right to do
wrong.' 2

Intimidation, sabotage, and murder grew in volume, and the
Church, always reluctant to interfere in a political or quasi-political
issue, could no longer remain silent. On the 26th April Cardinal
Logue and all the members of the Hierarchy issued a joint statement,
from which the following extracts arc taken. Perhaps one needs to be
a Catholic to realize the immense importance which is, or should be,
attached to such a pronouncement in a Catholic country.

‘The great national question of the Treaty is a legitimate question
for national discussion and debate. On that big question every Irish-
man is entitled to his own opinion, subject, of course, to truth and
responsibility to God. We, too, hold very definite and decided views
upon that important issue, but we do not mean to obtrude them on
anybody, founded though they arc on a disinterested and conscious
love of Ireland’s welfare,

‘Like the great bulk of the nation, we think that the best and wisest
course for Ireland is to accept the Treaty and make the most of the
freedom it undoubtedly brings us. . . . But we recognize that this is a
national question, to be settled by the national will, ascertained by an
election carried out in the ordinary constitutional way. . . .

‘The cause of all our present scandals and turmoil is the unconsti-
tutional policy of certain leaders who think themselves entitled to
force their views upon the nation, not by reason but by firearms. . . .

1 Irish Independent, 7 April 1922. 2 Senate Debates, xx, 1876.

60 THE FIGHT FOR THE TREATY

‘As to the organ of supreme authority in. this country at present,
whatever speculative views may be held upon the subject, in practice
there can be no doubt as long as the Ddil and the Provisional Govern-
ment act in unison, as they have hitherto done.

‘We beg the young men connected with this military revolt to con-
sider religiously our solemn teaching on this fundamental maxim of

social morality When they shoot their brothers on the opposite

side they are murderers. When they injure public and private pro-
perty they are robbers and brigands bound to restitution — all sins
and crimes of the most heinous guilt. . . .

‘We appeal, in the name of God, of Ireland and of national dignity,
to the leaders on both sides, civil and military, to meet again . . . and,
if they cannot agree upon the main question, to agree upon two
things at all events, and publish their agreement authoritatively to
the world — that the use of the revolver must cease and the elections,
the national expression of self-determination, be allowed to be held,
free from all violence.

‘The man who fails to hearken to this appeal, made not so much
by us as by Ireland, will carry with him to the grave an odious and a
dreadful responsibility.’ 1

On the 30th April Mr. De Valera made a speech in Longford. He
said : ‘It would be a terrible thing if the taunt of the English that they
were criminals, murderers, and rebels should appear to have been
upheld by the common people of any constituency in Ireland. . . .

‘It would be good-bye to stable conditions if they accepted the
Articles of Agreement, because there were men in Ireland who were
determined that if it was necessary for them again to offer another
' sacrifice such as was done in Easter Week they would do it before
' they allowed that nation to dishonour itself.’ 2

Longford is remote from the capital, and Mr. De Valera’s audience
would probably know little and care less about ‘the taunt of the
English . But even the humblest of them could hardly be unaware of
the fact that, only four days previously, the united Hierarchy of
Ireland, invoking the moral law, had condemned the acts of the
Irregulars as those of murderers, robbers, and brigands.

This speech by Mr. De Valera was made the day after the break-
down of a conference which had been sitting under the chairmanship
ot the Gtfholic Archbishop of Dublin (Most Rev. Dr. Byrne).
Griffith and Collins offered a general election in June on the issue of
the Treaty and the Constitution, asking for a guarantee against in-
1 Irish Independent, 27 April 1922. 2 Ibid., 1 May 1922.

THE COLLINS-DE VALERA PACT 61

timidation. This oficr was refused. They next offered a general elec-
tion in June on the single issue of the Treaty; the body so elected to
devise the Constitution and to dissolve, giving the people an oppor-
tunity of accepting or rejecting it. This offer was also refused. ‘To
meet specious objections raised as to the state of the Register’, they
finally offered (a) no general election for three months, and ( b ) a
plebiscite on the Treaty, within one month, of all adults, whether on
the register or not. This, too, was rejected, ‘both in principle and
detail’.

Mr. Dc Valera justified his refusal in a long statement to the Press,
in which he said, inter alia , that ‘ Republicans maintain . . . that there
arc rights which a minority may justly uphold, even by arms, against
a majority.’ He had proposed that the issue of the Treaty should not
be referred to the people for at least six months. ‘Time would be
secured for the present passions to subside, for personalities to disap-
pear, and the fundamental differences between the two sides to be
appreciated — time during which Ireland’s reputation could be vindi-
cated, the work of national reconstruction begun, and normal condi-
tions restored.’*

On the day before these words appeared, the Irregulars raided
branches of the Bank of Ireland all over the country and stole more
than a quarter of a million sterling. Arthur Griffith put the position
bluntly: ‘I say that whatever quibble, whatever force, whatever
juggling or intrigue they attempt to use to prevent an election, we
will meet that intrigue, that juggling or that force, because we are
determined to assert the sovereign right of the Irish people to say
whether they will or will not have the Treaty.’ 2

But Collins was willing to go further than Griffith in an attempt to
secure unity, and on the 20th May he signed an agreement with Mr.
De Valera which is known not to have had Griffith’s approval. This
provided for what was called a ‘National Coalition Panel’ of candi-
dates for the general election, the Treaty party and the anti-Treaty
party being represented on this panel by their existing strength. An
‘election’ conducted on this basis would have violated every principle
of democracy, but the Agreement contained a saving clause as
follows: ‘Every and any interest is free to go up and contest the
election equally with the National-Sinn Fdin Panel.’ 3 The agreement
was approved by the Sinn Fdin Convention, and ‘the General Election
was held on the 16th June. The Draft Constitution was issued for

* Irish Independent, 2 May 1922. 2 Ibid., 1 May 1922.

3 Ibid., 22 May 1922.

62 THE FIGHT FOR THE TREATY

publication on the previous evening— the day after the successful
termination of the London negotiations, which are recounted in the
next chapter. But as the issue was clearly the acceptance or rejection
of the Treaty its belated appearance, inevitable in the circumstances,
was of no great importance.

The election campaign was marked by appalling intimidation on
the part of the Irregulars, and candidates other than those on the
Panel were ‘discouraged’. As polling day approached Collins virtu-
ally disregarded the agreement, which by this time he probably re-
gretted having signed. It was, however, partially effective, as out of a
total of 128 seats no less than 37 were unopposed. Of these, 16 be-
longed to the anti-Treaty part of the panel, 17 to the pro-Treaty part,
and the remaining 4 were the members for Dublin University. By
coming forward in sufficient numbers, however, the members of the
Labour Party, the Farmers, and the Independents vindicated the
right of the electors to say whether or not they wanted the Treaty.
The result was as follows :

Party

Number of

Elected

Total

candidates

unopposed

elected

Pro-Treaty Panel

Anti-Treaty Panel

On both panels

Labour

Independents

Farmers

Dublin University

174

128

In so far as it had been allowed to express its wishes, the country
had declared decisively for the Treaty. The valid votes cast in the
contested constituencies were :

Pro-Treaty Panel 239, 1 93

Anti-Treaty Panel 130,716

On both panels 3 143

Labour 132 511

Independents 63 641

Farmers 51,074

620, 283 1

1 Irish Independent, 26 June 1922.

ACTION AGAINST IRREGULARS 63

If wc include in the anti-Trcaty vote the votes given to Mr. Daniel
Breen, whose name was on both panels, the result in summary
form is :

Total vote for the Treaty 486,419

Total vote against the T rcaty 1 33,864

Thus the anti-Trcaty vote was less than 22 per cent, of thewhole.lt
must be emphasized that, on the Treaty side, this was a perfectly free
election, in the sense that the members elected were not required to
take any parliamentary oath. Mr. De Valera has always contended
that it was not free, inasmuch as the Treaty was signed under a threat
from Mr. Lloyd George of ‘immediate and terrible war’. But this
seems counterbalanced by Mr. Dc Valera’s own plain intimations of
what would inevitably happen if the Treaty was ratified by the votes
of the people. They had, indeed, had a foretaste of it for months
prior to the election.

At midnight on the 27th June the Forces of the Provisional Govern-
ment served a four-hour ultimatum on the Irregular garrison in
occupation of the Four Courts, where one of their officers, who had
been kidnapped, was detained as a hostage. The ultimatum was
ignored and hostilities began. This was not, as is so often supposed,
the beginning of the Civil War. Civil war had been in progress ever
since the repudiation of the Ddil by the Irregulars under Rory
O’Connor on the 28th March ; but hitherto it had been all on one
side. Fortified by the result of the general election, the Provisional
Government at last fell itself in a position to discharge its elementary
duty to the citizens. It so happened that, just prior to the attack on
the Four Courts, the British Government, alarmed by the Collins-
De Valera Pact and the growing anarchy, was itself preparing to take
action against the Irregulars if the Provisional Government failed to
do so. In view of this fact, Mr. De Valera’s followers allege that the
attack was made on British orders. Arthur Griffith denied that this
was so, but his denial is unnecessary. It is obvious that no govern-
ment worthy of the name could tolerate indefinitely the occupation
of the Courts of Justice and other principal buildings by armed men
who acknowledged no civil authority whatever.

There is no need here to follow the course of the military opera-
tions. The Irregulars in the Four Courts surrendered after three days
and blew the place up, including the Public Record Office, with its
irreplaceable historical documents. Street fighting took place in the
streets of Dublin until the 5th July, the principal thoroughfare,

64 THE FIGHT FOR THE TREATY

O’Connell Street, being partially demolished. The rebels were gradu-
ally cleared out of Waterford, Limerick, Cork, Clonmel, and other
centres which they had occupied, leaving a trail of destruction behind
them. By the end of August field operations were virtually at an end,
but a guerrilla campaign continued for some months, as will be ex-
plained in a subsequent chapter.

On the 12th August Arthur Griffith died, his great heart broken
by the ruin of his dreams. Michael Collins said that he had ‘no shadow
of doubt but that his death was hastened by the mental anguish he has
endured because of the actions of those who . . . have acted as they

have done and as they are doing still Even so, it is not too late for

De Valera and those who are with him to honour the passing of a
great patriot by now achieving what that patriot has given his life for
—a united Ireland, an Irish nation.’ 1 Ten days later Collins was him-
self a corpse, slain while fighting his way out of an ambush into which
he had fallen while on a tour of inspection in his native county of
Cork. Thus within the space of a few days Ireland had lost the two
principal architects of the Treaty, one the President of the Ddil, and
the other the Chairman of the Provisional Government and Com-
mander-in-Chief of the Army. A more grievous blow at such a time
could scarcely be imagined ; but the nation’s government had to be
carried on, and two brave men stepped into the shoes of the dead
leaders, Mr. William T. Cosgravc becoming President and General
Richard Mulcahy Commander-in-Chief.

The appeal issued by Cardinal Logue and the archbishops and
bishops of Ireland on the 26th April had fallen on deaf ears. Since
then the people had declared their will, but anarchy had grown.
On the 10th October the Hierarchy, again headed by the aged
Cardinal, issued a Joint Pastoral, in which they spoke even more
sternly.

.... A section of the community, refusing to acknowledge the
Government set up by the nation, have chosen to attack their own
country as if she were a foreign power. Forgetting, apparently, that
a dead nation cannot be free, they have deliberately set out to make
our motherland, so far as they could, a heap of ruins. They have
wrec e reland from end to end, burning and destroying national

Value ’ breakin S roads, bridges and railways,

i y 1S mse asate blockade to starve the people or bury them
in social stagnation tv.*.,. J .

HIERARCHY AND THE MORAL LAW 65

ally only a system of murder and assassination of the National forces,
for it must not be forgotten that killing in an unjust war is as much
murder before God as if there were no war

‘In spite of all this sin and crime they claim to be good Catholics
and demand at the hands of the Church her most sacred privileges,
like the Sacraments, reserved for her worthy members

‘Vanity, perhaps self-conceit, may have blinded some who think
that they, and not the nation, must dictate the national policy. Greed
for land, love of loot and anarchy have affected others, and they, we
regret to say, arc not a few ; but the main cause of this demoralisation
is to be found in false notions on social morality.’

The Hierarchy then laid down the teaching of the Church, from
Saint Paul onwards, on obedience to authority as a divine duty as
well as a social necessity, and the Pastoral continued :

‘No Republican can evade this teaching by asserting that the legiti-
mate authority in Ireland is not the present Ddil or Provisional
Government. There is no other and cannot be, outside the body of
the people. A Republic without popular recognition behind it is a
contradiction in terms. Such being Divine Law, the guerrilla warfare
now being carried on by the Irregulars is without moral sanction,
and, therefore, the killing of National soldiers in the course of it is
murder before God, the seizing of public and private property is
robbery, the breaking of roads, bridges and railways is criminal des-
truction, the invasion of homes and the molestation of citizens a
grievous crime.

‘All those who in contravention of this teaching participate in such
crimes arc guilty of grievous sins and may not be absolved in Confes-
sion nor admitted to Holy Communion if they persist in such evil
courses

‘Our people will observe that in all this there is no question of mere
politics, but of what is morally right or wrong according to the
Divine Law. . . . What we condemn is the armed campaign now
being carried on against the Government set up by the nation. If any
section of the community . . . disapprove of the National Govern-
ment, they have the elections to fall back upon and such constitu-
tional action as is recognized by God and civilized society. If their
political views arc founded on wisdom they will succeed sooner or
later, but one thing is certain : the hand of Providence will not be
forced, nor their cause advanced by irreligion and crime.

‘It may, perhaps, be said that in this our teaching we wound the
strong feelings of many of our people. That we know, and the
F

66 THE FIGHT FOR THE TREATY

thought is agony to us. But we must teach Truth in such a grave

crisis, no matter what the consequences. . . .

‘With all earnestness we appeal to the leaders in this saddest revolt
to rise above their own feelings, to remember the claim of God and
the sufferings of the people in their conscience, and to abandon
methods which they now know beyond the shadow of a doubt are
unCatholic and immoral, and look to the realisation of their ideals
along lines sanctioned by Divine Law and society. . . . n

Up to this point the Irregulars had been operating independently
of even a pretended civil authority. On the 26th October 1922 — that
is to say, just sixteen days after the date of the Joint Pastoral of the
Hierarchy— there was published a sheetentitled PobJacht na h-tireann:
War News No. 78. Under the headlines ‘Stop Press. Ddil fireann.
Official Communique’ it stated that ‘D&il feireann, the Parliament
and Government of the Republic, met yesterday in secret session*
and had passed certain resolutions. Prefixed to the resolutions was a
preamble, in which the ‘traitorous conspiracy and armed revolt’
against the Republic are recited. The resolutions are :

‘ 1. We, the faithful Deputies of Ddil fiireann, assembled to main-
tain the Republic and to secure the continuity of independent
Government for the whole of Ireland, in the name of all loyal citizens
of the Republic and by the express wish of the soldiers fighting in its
defence, call upon the former President, fiamon De Valera, to re-
sume the Presidency and to nominate a Council of State and Execu-
tive Ministers, to assist him in carrying on the government until such
time as the Parliament of the Republic is allowed freely to assemble
or the people are allowed by a free election to decide how they shall
be governed.

‘2. That Eamon De Valera be hereby appointed President of the
Republic and Chief Executive of the State.

3. That the following, nominated by the President, be hereby
appointed the Council of State.’ (Here follow certain names.)

So that the Government of the Republic professed to be re-estab-
lished by the anti-Treaty party of the Ddil, with Mr. De Valera as
resi ent of the Republic and the Irish Republican Army as its mili-
um V ubse( l uent «sue of this sheet {PobJacht na h-£ireann:
War News No. 97), dated the 21st November 1922, contains the text

of a resolution passed by this ‘ Ddil ’ formally rescinding the resolution

of approval of the Treaty passed on the 7th January 1922. The pro-
Clamat ’°“ «*■««« it is signed by Mr. De Vata af 1 Present
1 Irish Independent , 11 October 1922.

REPUBLICANS AND THE HIERARCHY 67

of the Republic’ and by Mr. Ruttledge as ‘Minister for Home
Affairs’.

In the course of their Joint Pastoral, the Hierarchy had referred
to their previous pronouncement of the 26th April, and had con-
tinued: ‘We now again authoritatively renew that teaching, and
warn our Catholic people that they are conscientiously bound to
abide by it, subject, of course, to an appeal to the Holy See.’ In view
of this last phrase, it was rumoured in the newspapers that Mr. De
Valera and his colleagues intended to appeal to the Vatican. An
‘Official Communique, dated Thursday, 9th November 1922 and
published in Poblacht m h-£iream : War News No. 88, made it clear
that-this was not so. The ‘ Communiqud ’ is as follows :

‘The Government of the Republic does not intend to enter an
“Appeal” at Rome against the pronouncement of the Hierarchy, as
is suggested by the Press. The constitutional question at issue is not
one for the Hierarchy, but rather for the Supreme Court of the Re-
public. The terms of the Resolution passed by Dail Eireann are :

‘ “That we ask the President to make representations to the Vati-
can, formally and emphatically protesting as Head of the State against
the unwarrantable action of the Irish Hierarchy in presuming and pre-
tending to pronounce an authoritative judgment upon the question of
constitutional and political fact now at issue in Ireland, viz., whether
the so-called Provisional (Partition) Parliament, set up under threat
of unjust war and by a coup d'dtat, was the rightful legislature and
government of the country or not— and in using the sanction of reli-
gion to enforce their own political views and compel acquiescence by
Irish Republicans in an usurpation that entails no less consequences
than the partition of the ancient territory of our Nation, the loss of its
sovereignty and independence, and the imposition of a test oath that
amounts to the disfranchisement of Republicans who have regard for
the sacred bond of an oath and will not take it without meaning to
keep it. . . .” ’

So there was to be no appeal, but merely a protest. The view of the
Vatican was sufficiently indicated by the message sent a month later
by His Holiness Pope Pius XI to His Excellency Timothy Michael
Healy, K.C., cordially welcoming his appointment as the first
Governor-General of the Irish Free State.

‘The Holy Father prays that a happy era of peace and prosperity
may now set in for the beloved people of Ireland, and from his heart
sends you the Apostolic Benediction.’ 1

1 Freeman's Journal, 12 December 1922.

CHAPTER III

DRAFTING THE CONSTITUTION

Appointment of the Constitution Committee — Its personnel— Three
separate Drafts— Unanimity on question of bicameral system— Powers
of Second Chamber— Negotiations with the British Government on the
draft proposals— Views of Kevin O' Higgins and others on the subse-
quent agreement— Arthur Griffith and the minority— Problem of the
Southern Unionists — Griffith's interview with representatives of the
minority Their character and standing — Their subsequent interviews
with Mr. Lloyd George and Griffith — Undertakings given — Formal
negotiations begun— Griffith's identity of view with Kevin O' Higgins-
Main points of contention— The Heads of Agreement— Unionist dis-
satisfaction with character of Senate — Circumstances precluding
further concessions— Publication of the Draft Constitution.

It was assumed from the beginning that the new State was to be
provided with a written Constitution, based, of course, upon the
Treaty which, taken by itself, was clearly inadequate as an instru-
ment of government; and reference to this project has already been
ma e m connection with the discussions which took place between

?nn P Tt°k reaty an i the anti ' Treat y parties regarding a general elec-
tion' ^wh Pr° P ° Se K here t0 6Xamine the genesis of the Dra ft Constitu-
and the sublet presented to the Constituent Assembly,

tion CoSt f nwf ^ heads : (1 > the work the Constitu-

and (3) th^nt- ? he n ff tiations with the British Government;

WIth So,lthera “ ts - ^ «*■

to draw upl draft'comtitudOT 7 i°r m ™ nt appointed a committee
on the 30th of flip. ‘ Committee held its first meeting

the 30th of the same month, ' and its members were as follows:

1 Irish Times, 31 January 1922.

PERSONNEL OF COMMITTEE

General Michael Collins, chairman
James G. Douglas
Darrell Figgis
C. J. France
Hugh Kennedy, K.C.

James Murnaghan
James McNeill
John O’Byrne
Alfred O’Rahilly.

Michael Collins’s chairmanship can hardly have been other than
nominal, as his time was fully occupied by his duties as Chairman of
the Provisional Government, and the acting chairmanship devolved
on Darrell Figgis, a close friend of Arthur Griffith. Figgis was a man
of letters of undoubted genius, and during the Anglo-Irish struggle
he had proved his patriotism in a number of ways, having been im-
prisoned on several occasions by the British. He had, however, in
some degree, the instability and egotism which so often accompany
genius. He afterwards became the senior member of the Ddil for
County Dublin, and died tragically in London some years later.

Mr. Douglas was a Dublin business man and a member of the
Society of Friends. During 'the Anglo-Irish struggle he had done
valuable humanitarian work as honorary treasurer and trustee of the
Irish White Cross Funds — a form of activity which had brought him
into touch with Michael Collins. He later became a member of the
Senate, of which he was the first Vice-Chairman. Mr. C. J. France
was a United States lawyer who had been sent to Ireland during the
Anglo-Irish War by the American Committee for Relief in Ireland.
Mr. Hugh Kennedy, K.C., at the time of his appointment to the
committee held the post of Legal Adviser to the Provisional Govern-
ment. He subsequently became the first Attorney-General of the
Irish Free State, and, following the establishment of the new courts,
its first Chief Justice — a position which he held until his death in
1936. Mr. Murnaghan, a barrister, was Professor of Jurisprudence in
University College, Dublin, and afterwards was appointed to be a
Judge of the Supreme Court. Mr. McNeill had had a distinguished
career in the Indian Civil Service, and on his retirement had become
chairman of the Dublin County Council. He was subsequently the
first High Commissioner of the Irish Free State in London and its
second Governor-General. Mr. O’Byme, a prominent barrister, after-
wards became Attorney-General on Mr. Kennedy’s elevation to the

70 DRAFTING THE CONSTITUTION

Bench. He was a Judge of the High Court from 1926 to 1940, when
he was elevated to the Supreme Court. Mr. O’Rahilly was then, as
now, Professor of Mathematical Physics in University College, Cork,
and a prolific writer on political and social questions.

It will be apparent that the Constitution Committee was in no
sense a political body. It was a group of distinguished men in which
commerce, administration, the theory and practice of law, and what
might be termed the professorial outlook were all represented. The
absence of any spokesman of those who opposed the Anglo-Irish
Treaty was regrettable, but inevitable in the circumstances. The
Southern Unionists were also unrepresented, but the extent to which
they were consulted will be detailed later. The Committee had an
able and experienced secretariat of three (Messrs. R. J. P. Mortis-
head, P. A. O’Toole, and E. M. Stephens), and after a period of in-
tensive work extending over two months it had discharged the task
entrusted to it.

The members of the Committee were unable to agree upon a single
draft and three were sent to the Government. 1 Other copies of these
drafts are known to exist besides those in the Government archives;
Mr. De Valera, for instance, when Leader of the Opposition, told
the D&il that he had seen them and mentioned the names of some of
the signatories, as well as giving other details. 2 In the circumstances,
it is to be regretted that the Government has never published
them, more especially as they are documents of great historical
interest.

Article 2 of the Treaty provided that ‘ the position of the Irish Free
State in relation to the Imperial Parliament and Government and
otherwise shall be that of the Dominion of Canada’. The question
arose whether these words implied that the Irish Free State was
necessarily tied to the bicameral system, and the point was cleared
up in a letter written by the Prime Minister (Mr. Lloyd George) to
Arthur Griffith, to the effect that the analogy thus drawn with
Canada did not in any way imply that a Second Chamber should be
formed on the Canadian model, or, indeed, that there should neces-
sarily be any Second Chamber at all. 3 The Constitution Committee
was therefore quite free to recommend a unicameral system if it so

foramen T ^ ^ notewor ^ three drafts contained provisions
Two of the drafts agreed on the type and powers of the second

’ SSquS Debm,% v D n?l£ “*“• I502 ' I503 ‘

PROVISIONS FOR SENATE 71

chamber. 1 The number of senators was apparently to be forty, 2 and
the suspensory power was for a period of 180 days. Actually, the
period was longer, for the senate, by a majority, could suspend a
Bill, after it had been passed, for a further period of ninety days,
during which it was to be submitted to a referendum. 3 Both these
drafts contained provisions for the initiation of legislation by the
people. 4

The third draft, signed by two members, laid great emphasis on
the initiative and on the referendum, and it included detailed propo-
sals for both. 5 The authors of this draft were prepared to give much
wider powers to the upper house than were the authors of the other
two, as the following Article will show :

‘(1) All Bills passed by the House shall be presented to the Senate
for approval. If within one month, being time of session, after such
presentation, the Senate does not express disapproval, it shall be
taken to have approved.

‘(2) In case the Senate amends or rejects the Bill, it shall be
brought before the House for further consideration. Should the
House and Senate not arrive at an agreement within three months,
being time of session, the Bill, if it appropriates revenue or imposes
taxation, shall become law as finally passed by the House, save as
provided in the preceding Article. If the Bill does not appropriate
revenue or impose taxation it shall become inoperative unless within
that interval a Referendum is demanded by 50,000 voters or by a
majority of the House or Senate, in which case the law as finally
passed by the House shall be submitted to a vote of the people for
acceptance or rejection.

‘(3) If the House by a two-thirds majority declare that the measure
is of extreme urgency the period of three months provided in the pre-
ceding section shall be reduced to one month.’ 6

If this Article had been incorporated in the Constitution, it would
have placed the Senate in a dominant position in regard to all legisla-
tion except finance.

The foregoing is all the information that has so far been made
public regarding the work of the Constitution Committee. But it is
not unreasonable to assume that the Draft Constitution introduced
in the Constituent Assembly embodied in substance the proposals
contained in one or more of the three drafts, apart from those

1 Senate Debates, xvii, 20.

3 Senate Debates , xvii, 20, 21.

6 Senate Debates, xvii, 21.

2 Dai! Debates, i, 1154.

4 Dai! Debates, xxiii, 1502.
« Ibid.

72 .. DRAFTING THE CONSTITUTION

Articles which were the subject of the negotiations that we are now
about to consider.

Arthur Griffith went to London on the 25th May 1922, taking with
him the Provisional Government’s draft proposals for a constitution, 1
and the conversations with the British Government and the repre-
sentatives of the Southern Unionists proceeded pari passu. At these
and subsequent meetings, Griffith was accompanied by his able young
lieutenant, Kevin O’Higgins, and by the Law Officer of the Govern-
ment (Hugh Kennedy, K.C.). The purpose of the negotiations with
the British Government was to arrive at an agreed interpretation of
those portions of the Draft Constitution which dealt with the rela-
tions between the two countries. The original draft has never been
published, but there seems to be no doubt that it did not embody the
constitutional forms common to the constitutions of the overseas
nations of the Commonwealth. Mr. Ernest Blythe, who was Minister
for Local Government and a member of the Cabinet at the time, said
of it later:

‘For my part, I never had any belief whatever that the British
would agree to all that was in the draft that was taken over to
London, and, for my part, I believe the draft went outside the terms
of the Treaty, and was such as we had no right to expect would be
agreed to. I agreed to it as the first draft because it left room for
bargaining.’ 2

When the jDraft Constitution was before the Constituent Assembly,
Kevin O’Higgins enumerated fifteen Articles (out of a total of
seventy-nine) on which the Government were prepared to stand as
a matter of Treaty obligation, 3 and we may assume that these, and
these only, had been either inserted or modified as a result of the

inter-governmental negotiations in London. They include Article 1,
which states that ‘the Irish Free State is a co-equal member of the
Community . of Nations forming the British Commonwealth of
Nations ; Articles 17, 55, and 77, which deal with the parliamentary
Oath , Article 40, which provides for the withholding of the King’s
assent to Bills; and Article 65, which contains the provision for ap-
peals to the Privy Council. All the remaining Articles are merely
those which contain references to the King, the Crown, and .the
ovemor-General as part of the formal governmental machinery
roug which South Africa and other Commonwealth co unt ries
continue to operate in conditions of complete legislative freedom,
ihe negotiations came to a successful conclusion in the month of
1 Irish Times, 26 May 1922. a mil Debates, i, 383. a Ibid . } i? 578 .

GRIFFITH AND UNIONISTS 73

June, and Kevin O’Higgins described the agreed draft as ‘a strict
but fair interpretation of the Treaty’. 1 It must be remembered that,
at the time of the conversations, the Civil War was raging, and
Darrell Figgis recalled that Michael Collins had stated ‘that if the
first draft of the Constitution had been taken over two or three
months before it was taken over, he believed that substantially it
would have passed and would not have come back in the form in
which it did come back : the change having been wrought because of
the action of certain men in this country who had created disturbance
from one end of the nation to the other, and who had spoken threaten-
ingly against the obligation that this nation had incurred, and whose
action, therefore, had weakened the hand of our negotiators in
London.’ 2 Mr. Gavan Duffy (now the Hon. Mr. Justice Gavan Duffy,
of the High Court), who had been a signatory of the Treaty, was dis-
satisfied with the form of the Draft Constitution, but he agreed that
there was something to be said for this view: ‘I sympathise with the
Minister who said that, because it is true that Mr. De Valera and his
friends' have forgotten the day when they promised that there was a
constitutional way of settling our differences, and they have forgotten
the day when they promised us that if we were up against England
they would be behind us as an auxiliary army. Yes, there is some truth
in the fact that the deplorable performances of that party have made
the Government position difficult.’ 3 It is interesting to speculate what
the form of the agreed Constitution of 1922 would have been if the
country had not been split on the issue of the Treaty and if there had
been no Civil War.

We now come to the negotiations with the Southern Unionists, but
before dealing with them we must describe Arthur Griffith’s general
outlook on the minority problem. Griffith was a man of statesman-
like breadth of vision, who realized quite clearly that there was no
future for a self-governing Ireland except through the full and willing
co-operation of all classes and creeds within its shores. As Gambetta
refused to inquire the date at which any Frenchman became a Re-
publican, so Griffith intended that, once the struggle for autonomy
had been won, the memory of old wrongs and recent differences
should be gradually effaced in the joint effort to rebuild the nation.
There was to be a place in the new Ireland for Irishmen whatever
their origin— Gael, Norman, Jacobite, Cromwellian, Williamite—
and work to do for all. This, of course, is the doctrine of Wolfe Tone
and the United Irishmen, of O’Connell, of Thomas Davis and Young
1 Dai! Debates, i, 358. 2 Ibid., i, 498, 499. 3 Ibid., i, 536.

74 DRAFTING THE CONSTITUTION

Ireland, of Parnell and of Redmond : in short, of all the great leaders
of the Irish people in modern times. Though Griffith did sterling work
for the revival of the native language, the notion (which gathered
force only after his death) that the unity of the country is to be
achieved through the intensive Gaelicization of English-speaking
Ireland, with the hegemony of the Gael as the ultimate ideal, would
have seemed as fantastic to him as it would have been inconceivable
to them.

The kernel of Griffith’s problem in this matter was the position of
the Southern Unionists, that is to say, of those who, in the past, had
been in favour of the maintenance of the legislative union with Great
Britain. Mostly Protestant by religion, they were but a tiny fraction of
the total population, but the course of history had endowed them with
wealth, influence, and prestige far disproportionate to their numbers.
Their forebears were for the most part Englishmen and Scotsmen who
had settled in Ireland after one or other of our old wars ; but it would
be a cardinal mistake to suppose that these people were a sort of
uitlander in the country. Centuries of environment, accompanied in
many cases by intermarriage, had evolved an Anglo-Irish type that
was just as distinctly Irish as the Catholic Nationalist majority, but
imbued with a loyalty to the Crown and the British connection which
the majority, being a conquered people, could not feel. The atrocities
perpetrated during the Black and Tan period had alienated the sym-
pathies of many of the Southern Unionists ; they recognized that the
days of the British rdgime were numbered; and their responsible
leaders were concerned to secure that, in whatever scheme of self-
government might be decided upon, there should be adequate safe-
guards for the minority. At the time, it might have been thought that
their nervousness was not justified, and was in fact an unwarranted
reflection on their fellow countrymen ; but the manner in which their
persons and property were singled out for attack by Mr. De Valera’s
supporters during the Civil War of 1922-3 proved their fears not to
have been groundless.

The negotiations actually began before the Treaty was signed, as
is shown by the following document, which was quoted in full in the

enate (doubtless from the original in the Government archives) by
Senator William Quirke (a member of the Fianna Fdil Party) on the
16th January 1936 : l J

1 Senate Debates, xx, 1896.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNIONISTS 75

AGREEMENTS WITH SOUTHERN UNIONISTS

‘On the 16th November, 1921, Mr. Arthur Griffith met Lord
Midleton, Dr. Bernard (Provost of Trinity College) and Mr. Andrew
Jameson in London, and discussed with them the question of safe-
guards for the interests of the Unionist minority. He reported this
meeting in a letter to the President [Mr. De Valera] of the same date.
In this letter he made the following statement regarding the discus-
sion on a Senate and the understandings reached :

“‘They strongly argued there should be a 'Senate. I said I was in
favour of a Second Chamber and I believed my colleagues would be.
If it comes to a point, when we were erecting the machinery I would
propose that they be consulted as to the constitution of the Senate.
They said they were satisfied with this.”

‘Replying to a letter from Mr. Lloyd George on the 1st December,
1921, Mr. Arthur Griffith referred to his agreement with the Southern
Unionists, “to provide safeguards for the representation of minorities
and the general protection of their interests.” He added: “Similar
safeguards we shall expect in the case of the minority in the North-
East area of Ireland.” ’

At the time that these discussions took place, Griffith was in
London, engaged as chairman of the Irish Plenipotentiaries in the
negotiations with the British Government which resulted in the
Treaty. The three gentlemen on the other side were not in any sense,
and would not have claimed to be, accredited representatives of the
Southern Unionists ; for the Southern Unionists were not organized
in a political sense. Numerically, they were too small to return mem-
bers to the House of Commons, but political representation was im-
material to their interests under the British regime, since they were
of the ‘ascendancy class’, as it was called, and preferment of all
kinds was open to them. It is for this reason that Kevin O’Higgins
later referred to these negotiators as ‘representative Southern
Unionists . . . rather than representatives of the Southern Unionists.’ 1
Their suitability as spokesmen for the minority could scarcely be
questioned, however. All three had been members of the Irish Con-
vention of 1917-18. The Most Rev. Dr. Bernard was Archbishop of
Dublin from 1915 to 1919 and represented the Church of Ireland on
the Convention; in the latter year he became Provost of Trinity
College, an office which he held at the time the Treaty was signed.
The other two negotiators had formed part of the Southern Unionist

1 Dail Debates, i, 1725.

76 DRAFTING THE CONSTITUTION

delegation to the Convention. Mr. Andrew Jameson was a dis-
tinguished figure in the financial and business life of the City of
Dublin; he was a member of the Irish Privy Council and a Director
and former Governor of the Bank of Ireland. The Earl of Midleton,
as Mr. St. John Brodrick, M.P., had been Secretary of State for War
during the Boer War and shortly afterwards (1901-3); he was an
extensive landowner, and might therefore be regarded as fairly repre-
sentative of political Unionism and of the landlord class.

With regard to Griffith’s letter to Mr. Lloyd George, two points
are to be noted. The promise of safeguards for the Southern Unionists
was not conditional on the provision of similar safeguards for the
Northern Nationalists ; and the request for the latter (which was not
acceded to) was made to the British Prime Minister and not to the
Southern Unionists, who have small contact or influence with the
ruling class in Belfast and who have never been characterized by the
same circumscribed rigidity of outlook.

The Treaty had been signed on the 6th December 1921, in the small
hours of the morning. Mr. Andrew Jameson has informed me that in
the forenoon of that day the Prime Minister (Mr. Lloyd George) sent
for him, Dr. Bernard and Lord Midleton, told them the details of

the Treaty, heard their views upon it, and stated that it was with the
new rulers of the country, and not with the British Government, that
any consultation must take place with regard to the future of the
minority. The same afternoon, they had an interview with Arthur
Griffith and it was on this occasion, apparently, that Griffith promised
(a) the adoption of Proportional Representation in elections for the
Ddil and ( b ) due representation for the Southern Unionists in the

Senate. These undertakings were specified in a letter written by
Griffith to Mr. Lloyd George. 1

We are now in a position to consider the formal negotiations
which, as has been said, began in London towards the end of May
1922. At that time, the Dominions Office had not been established,
an the invitation to the conference was issued by the Secretary of
tate for the Colonies, Mr. Winston Churchill, who was a signatory
, e ^ reat y- 2 The Provisional Government was represented by
Arthur Griffith and Kevin O’Higgins, and the three Unionist negotia-
te were joined by the Earl of Donoughmore, who was Chairman of
and Def>Uty S P eaker of the House of Lords.

has air* a ^ nera \f ttitUde t0 the P r °b lem °f the Unionist minority
Has already been described. He saw clearly that the -Anglo-Irish

DM Debates, i, 355, 1153. ° Ibid, U 153 , 1455 .

MAIN POINTS OF CONTENTION

tradition is an essential element in the life of the nation, and he was
prepared to welcome the co-operation of his erstwhile opponents in
shaping the destiny of their common country. His death a few months
later, at the height of the Civil War, was a tragedy for Ireland; but
it was some consolation that there was between him and Kevin
O’Higgins, who survived him, a complete identity of view on this
question. Speaking in the Ddil on the minority problem shortly after
Griffith’s death, O’Higgins said :

‘We now know no political party. We have taken quite definitely
a step forward in our evolution towards completion of nationhood.
These people are part and parcel of the nation, and we being the
majority and strength of the country ... it comes well from us to
make a generous adjustment to show that these people were regarded,
not as alien enemies, not as planters, but that we regard them as
part and parcel of this nation, and that we wish them to take their
share of its responsibilities.’ 1

. No memoranda of the conference were published, but it is a matter
of common knowledge that the discussions centred on the constitu-
tion and powers of the Second Chamber, this being the subject on
which Griffith had promised to consult the Southern Unionists. The
main points of contention are readily deducible from statements
which were subsequently made by Kevin O’Higgins when the Con-
stitution Bill was before the Dail, and which are quoted below.

The Irish Convention had proposed a Senate of a nominated type,
but by 1922 public opinion would no longer have tolerated a Second
Chamber of that kind. Hence the Unionists now urged that the elec-
torate for the Senate should be on a restricted franchise, based on a
high rateable qualification. ‘There was a certain pressure aver what
we all felt would be a very unpopular thing, a certain pressure over
the property qualification, and in the negotiations which took place
we were rather firm in our refusal to consider anything of the kind.’ 2
It was agreed, however, that the Senate should not be elected like
the D&il, under universal adult suffrage, but by persons of thirty
years and upwards.

The Unionists also considered it important that the number of
Senators should be in a reasonably high proportion to the number of
members of the other House, which at that time stood at 128. The
original proposal of the Provisional Government was for a Senate
of forty members, 3 but this figure was increased to sixty by agree-

3 Ibid., i, 483-4.

1 Ddil Debates, i, 482.
3 Ibid., i, 1154.

DRAFTING THE CONSTITUTION

ment. ‘We wish it to be sixty, because some stress was laid on the
total membership by the people whom we met in London.’ 1

The importance of the higher number, from the Unionists’ point
of view, is explained by the fact that it was coupled with a proposal
that, in case of disagreement between the two Houses, the dispute
should be resolved by a joint sitting, at which there would be joint
voting. ‘There was pressure for joint voting, but that particular
request was not conceded.’ 2 Nevertheless, the suggestion was a valu-
able one. This device for the removal of deadlock was incorporated
in the Constitution of South Africa (Section 63 of the South Africa
Act, 1909) and the experience of more than a quarter of a century has
confirmed its value in that country.

The chief remaining point in dispute concerned the suspensory
power to be accorded to the Upper House. The Unionists desired a
power of delay of twelve months and the Provisional Government
proposed one of six months. Finally, a period of 270 days, or roughly
nine months, was agreed upon as a compromise. ‘It was a deal be-
tween six months, which some thought to be too short, and twelve
months, which some thought to be too long, and then there was the
middle course.’ 3

Heads of Agreement were drawn up jointly by the Law Officer
(the late Hugh Kennedy, K.C.) on behalf of the Provisional Govern-
ment and by Sir Francis Greer, Parliamentary Counsel to the Irish
Office, and Sir Frederick Liddell, First Parliamentary Counsel to the
Treasury on behalf of the British Government and the Southern
Unionists; and the two sides held their final meeting in the Colonial
Office on the 14th June 1922, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Winston
Churchill. 4 The representatives of the Provisional Government were
Arthur Griffith and Kevin O’Higgins. In reply to a Parliamentary
Question on the following 3rd October, O’Higgins said : ‘The Agree-
ment in question was made about the 10th June last [the actual date
appears to have been the 14th], and the people who represented the
Southern Unionists were as follows : Most Rev. Dr. Bernard (Provost
of Trinity), Lord Donoughmore, Lord Midleton, Mr. Andrew Jame-
son. ked,^ further, whether the Agreement was written or verbal,
he replied: ‘In a sense, both; there were certain negotiations and
certain arguments across the table, and, finally, the draft Agreement
was written. 5 ' e

The matters agreed upon were later detailed in the following

1 Dai/ Debates, i, 1798.

4 Irish Times, 15 June 1922.

2 Ibid., i, 484, 1163. a jbid.

6 DM Debates , i, 1024.

HEADS OF AGREEMENT 79

memorandum, published by the Provisional Government and dated
the 26th September 1922. The references to ‘the Draft’ are to the
Draft Constitution, then before the Ddil. Speaking in the Dail, Kevin
O’Higgins made it clear that the text is not that of the actual Agree-
ment, but merely some notes upon it. 1

HEADS OF AGREEMENT

1 1. The Senate to consist of 60 members, of whom two are to be
elected by the National University of Ireland and two by the Dublin
University. If the Six Counties remain in the Free State, there would
also be two members added from the University of Belfast.

‘2. The remaining 56 members of the Senate to be elected from a
panel consisting of three times the number of members to be elected,
of whom two-thirds are to be nominated by the D4il and one-third
by the Senate, in each case voting according to principles of Propor-
tional Representation ; and also of persons who have at any time
been members of the Senate and indicate their desire to be included
on the panel.

‘3. The electorate for the Senate to be persons of 30 years and
upwards.

‘4. The period between the first presentation of a Bill to the Senate
and the date upon which it shall be deemed to be passed, whether the
Senate agree or not, to be 270 days, as provided by Article 37 of the
Draft.

‘5. Power to be given to three-fifths of the members of the Senate
to require a referendum during the 90-day period mentioned in
Article 46, without a petition being signed as there provided, that is
to say, a three-fifths majority of the Senate in session and voting may
call for a referendum, or, in the alternative, the petition there men-
tioned to remain.

‘6. Provision to be made for joint debate of the two Houses in
cases of disagreement, but not for joint voting (see end of Article 37).
This provision not to be applied to a Money Bill.

‘7. Decision on a referendum to be final, without further delay.
Voting at the referendum to be by ballot.

‘8. The question whether any particular Bill is or is not a Money
Bill to be certified by the Speaker of the Dail, subject to appeal to a
Committee of Privileges, drawn equally from both Houses, presided
over by a Judge of the Supreme Court, who shall have a casting vote
but no other vote.

1 Dail Debates, i, 1156.

80 DRAFTING THE CONSTITUTION

‘9. The first Senate to be one half nominated and the other half
elected by the Ddil : the whole to be divided into four classes, of
whom one half of the nominated members retire from office at the
end of twelve years, half of the elected members at the end of nine
years, the remaining half of the nominated members at the end of six
years, and the remaining half of the elected members at the end of
three years. The nominated members to be nominated by the Presi-
dent in manner calculated to represent minorities or interests not
represented adequately in the Dail, and such nomination to be made
on the advice of the following bodies :

Chambers of Commerce
College of Physicians and College of Surgeons
Benchers of King’s Inns and Incorporated Law Society
The Corporations of Dublin and Cork
The stipulation as to consultation not to be embodied in the Constitu-
tion, but to be contained in an undertaking to be embodied in a
resolution of the new Parliament. The text of the resolution to be
submitted to the Provisional Government was agreed between Presi-
dent Griffith, the Southern Unionists and the British Government,
and will be properly submitted when that portion of the Constitution
is dealt with.

‘ 10. A matter which gave rise to considerable difference of opinion,
and was ultimately, after much debate, agreed to was that the consti-
tuency for the election of Senators should be the Irish Free State,
taken as a whole.

11. It was also agreed that the term of office of a Senator should
be twelve years, and that no person should be eligible for election
who had not reached the age of 35 years.

12. The clauses in which these various headings of agreement are
set out were first settled by the Law Officer on behalf of the Provi-

, sional Government and by Sir F. Greer and Sir F. Liddell on behalf
ol the British Government and the Southern Unionists, and the texts
were submitted at a Conference and agreed to as they are now con-
tained in the Draft Constitution.

two^' ^ ^ e ? e matters are the subject of deliberate agreement be-
ween the Irish Government representatives and the Southern

is arrn a- Government; and the Irish Government

provisions^ ^ ° UnC * t0 P ass these provisions as Government

neStta T far “ deed from satisfying the four Unionist
g tors, who had pressed unsuccessfully for the precedent in the

UNIONIST DISSATISFACTION 81

abortive Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to be followed. In particu-
lar, they regarded the nine months’ power of delay as hopelessly in-
adequate, and they felt that the system of popular election adopted
for the Second Chamber afforded no real safeguard for the protec-
tion of minorities. On the 14th June 1922 they addressed the following
communication to the Secretary of State for the Colonies :

‘We, the undersigned, wish to place it on record that although,
according to the pledge of His Majesty’s Government and the Provi-
sional Government, we have been given the opportunity of seeing
and discussing those articles of the Irish Constitution which affect the
composition and relations of the two Houses, the other articles of the
Constitution have not been submitted to us. Our advice and sugges-
tions have been limited to the composition of the Senate and its rela-
tion to the Lower House.

‘We fully recognise the desire to meet our views, and the conces-
sions which have been made during the prolonged discussions which
have taken place on the scheme as originally submitted to us.

‘Nevertheless, we regret that the precedent of the Senate now in
existence for Southern Ireland under the Act of 1920 has not been
followed, and we are not satisfied that any Senate constituted, as
proposed, by popular election, and with powers so strictly limited,
can afford a genuine protection to minorities in Ireland.

( signed ) Midleton.

J. H. Bernard, Bp.

Donoughmore.

Andrew Jameson.’*

'There is, however, another side to the question. It is inconceivable
that, in the circumstances then existing, Griffith and O’Higgins could
have advanced further than they did in the way of concessions to the
minority’s point of view without jeopardy to the whole Treaty posi-
tion — the upsetting of which would have been at least as bad for the
Southern Unionists as for anyone else. The Constitution had to be
piloted through the Constituent Assembly, many members of which
had accepted the Treaty with reluctance and some of whom were
not slow to allege that the draft presented for their acceptance repre-
sented a whittling-down of the Treaty. Here again, the Civil War
had its effect. ‘Every tim e we crossed to England’, said Kevin
O’Higgins, ‘to negotiate points consequential on the Treaty, things
happened here that were meant to be mines under our feet. There

1 Irish Times, 16 June 1922.

82 DRAFTING THE CONSTITUTION

was never a time we sat down at the table with the British that wires
did not come pouring in of soldiers shot in College Green, or raids
across the Six-County border, or some such incidents that were not
calculated to smooth our path and create a better atmosphere.’ 1

In the long run, no government can successfully move far in ad-
vance of public opinion ; and it is as true to-day as it was eighteen
years ago that Ireland differs from most of the countries that still
enjoy free institutions in that no substantial body of public opinion
holds the view that a strong Second Chamber is a vital necessity, not
so much as a safeguard for minorities as for the protection of demo-
cracy itself.

Having thus obtained agreement with the British Government and
the Southern Unionists, the Provisional Government lost no time in
publishing the Draft Constitution. It was issued to the Press on the
night of the 15th June 1922 — the eve of the general election — and was
printed in full in the Dublin newspapers of the following morning.

1 Dail Debates , i, 358, 359.

CHAPTER IV

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SENATE

The Dail as Constituent Assembly — Mr. Cosgrove's classification of
the Articles of the Constitution — Amendments to the Senate provisions
— Transfer of university representation from Senate to Dail — Minor
amendments — Composition of Senate in Constitution as finally enacted
—Qualifications of Senators — Special provisions for first Senate —
Terms of office of nominated and elected members — Casual vacancies —
Trietmial elections — Towers of the Senate — Money Bills-Suspensory
power — Joint sitting — Referendum — Initiation of Bills — Senators ex-
cluded from Executive Council — Extern Ministers — Miscellaneous
provisions — The thirty nominated members — Analysis and commentary
—Lack of legal representation — The thirty elected members — Circum-
stances of the election — Commentary on personnel— Representative
character of first Senate — Number of Catholics and non-Catholics.

Th e Dail, sitting as a Constituent Assembly, met on the 9th Sep-
tember 1922. The date originally fixed was the 1st July, and there
were several postponements by successive proclamations owing to
the Civil War. The Bill to enact the Constitution was formally read a
first time on the 18th September. In his introductory speech, the
President of the Dail (Mr. Cosgrave) adopted the classificationwhich
logically followed from the London negotiations, viz. :

(a) those Articles which were the subject of agreement with the
British Government ;

(b) those which implemented the Agreement with the Southern
Unionists, the heads of which he read ;

He stated that the Government stood absolutely upon class (a) as a
matter of Treaty obligation ; they stood upon class (b) as an obliga-
tion of honour; and in regard to class (c) the Dail would have a free

84 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SENATE

hand. 1 He added that, with the consent of the Cabinet, he had asked
the Minister for Home Affairs to take charge of the Bill in its passage
through the Dail— a task which Kevin O'Higgins, then just turned
thirty years of age, discharged with consummate ability. •

The Second Reading of the Bill was carried on the 21st September
1922, after a two-day debate, by 47 votes to 16. The minority con-
sisted of the members of the Labour Party, but their dissent did not
extend to the Senate provisions. In fact, their action seems largely to
have been conducted on the principle that it is the duty of an opposi-
tion to oppose.

Eight days were given to the Committee Stage of the Bill and two
to the Report Stage ; and the Bill was finally passed by the Constituent
Assembly, without a division, on the 25th October 1922. Numerous
amendments were inserted during the Bill’s progress, but only a few
of them affected the Senate. These touched the question of univer-
sity representation, the period given to the Second Chamber to con-
sider Money Bills, and the right of audience of Ministers. When these
three points have been considered the Senate provisions of the
Constitution as finally enacted can be summarized.

It will be recalled that the Agreement with the Southern Unionists
provided for a Senate of sixty members, two of whom were to be
selected by the National University of Ireland and two by Dublin
University (Trinity College). During the Committee Stage of the
Bill Deputy William Magennis, Professor of Metaphysics in the
former university, and one of its four representatives in the D&il,
tabled a motion to the effect that the D&il approved the principle of
university representation in the Popular Chamber (4th October 1922).
The weight of opinion was in favour of the proposal, which was ac-
cepted without a division, and the necessary changes were made in
the Constitution. Each of the two universities was given three seats
m the Ddil; and, as it was clearly not intended that there should be
university representation in both Houses, the relative Senate provi-
sions were deleted.

n ur 6 °! d r ^ me Members of Parliament representin
* mversity at Westminster had almost invariably been Unior

nail e y emar k s spokesmen of the university in th

n t , *. S ^ e . c * university representation are worthy of bein

Deoutv UIK l ua ^ ed acceptance of the new orde:

Son (aftorwards *• H “- Mr. Justice Fiti

giooon, ol the Supreme Court) said :

1 Dail Debates , i, 354-7.

UNIVERSITY REPRESENTATION 85

‘The people who purported to represent Southern Unionists when
they were discussing certain matters with the Irish representatives in
London — I do not consider them- as representing me. I represent the
constituency that sent me here, and I am satisfied and take on my own
shoulders the responsibility of deleting University representation . . .
in consideration of the great concession this House has made in
placing University representatives in the Dail, to assist in the legisla-
tion, instead of being put into a cooling chamber. So far as I and
those who represent the University here are concerned, we will, as
far as we can, absolve the Government of a charge of breach of faith
with these people with whom they made arrangements/ 1

Mr. O’Higgins, in fairness to the signatories of the London Agree-
ment, here intervened to say that they had stated ‘quite clearly that
they had no definite mandate from any particular body, and were
simply there as fairly representative of a class’ ; and then Deputy
William Thrift (now Provost of Trinity College) followed his col-
league on the same side :

‘I should like to associate myself with what Deputy Fitzgibbon
has said. I represent the University and it has no connection with
Southern Unionists. On behalf of that University, I associate myself
with him in saying that I am prepared to accept the withdrawal of this
clause ... in consideration of the concession made giving university
representation in the Dail.’ 2

The resultant change left a Senate of fifty-six members ; but on the
Report Stage of the Bill the total was restored to sixty, Mr. O’Higgins
stating that the number agreed on with the Southern Unionists ought,
in his opinion, to be adhered to. 3

In the Bill as introduced, the Senate was given only fourteen days
in which to consider Money Bills. On the Committee Stage, Deputy
Darrell Figgis moved to substitute one calendar month, but with-
drew his amendment, the Government undertaking to consider the
matter. On the Report Stage, Mr. O’Higgins proposed a period of
twenty-one days as a compromise, and this was adopted.

The only other amendment of substance, so far as the Second
Chamber was concerned, was also effected on the Report Stage. A
new Article (57) was inserted, conferring on Ministers the right of
audience in the Senate.

We are now in a position to review the constitution and powers of
the Upper House as embodied in the Bill as finally passed by the
Constituent Assembly. The Senate was created as a constituent
1 Dail Debates, i, 1 152. 2 Ibid., i, 1153. 3 Ibid., i, 1726.

.86 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SENATE ‘

House of the legislature (Article 12); and it was to ‘be composed of
citizens who shall be proposed on the grounds that they have done
honour to the Nation by reason of useful public service or that,
because of special qualifications or attainments, they represent im-
portant aspects of the Nation’s life’ (Article 30). It was recognized
from the beginning that this Article represented no more than, in
Mr. O’Higgins’s words, ‘a useful headline’. As a result of it, the
Proposal Paper of every candidate for election to the Senate con-
tained a column in which the nature of his useful public service or
special qualifications had to be set out. Some of these statements
make curious reading. They were limited by the Electoral Rules to
forty words ; and the more unsuitable the candidate, the greater the
likelihood that he would approach the limit, or even seek to exceed
it. Few would-be candidates can have been refused nomination on
the ground that they did not come within the scope of the Article.

The test of eligibility for membership of the Senate was the same
as that for membership of the Dail, that is to say, it was subject to
the usual statutory disqualifications; the minimum age was thirty-
five years; and the normal term of office was twelve years (Article
31).

Special provision for the constitution of the first Senate was made
by Article 82. Thirty members (that is, one-half of the House) were
to be nominated by the President of the Executive Council, with
special regard to the providing of representation for groups or parties
not then adequately represented in the Ddil. Of these, fifteen, to be
selected by lot, were to hold office for the full term of twelve years,
and the remaining fifteen for six years.

The other thirty members were to be elected by the Ddil, voting on
principles of proportional representation. The first fifteen elected

were to hold office for nine years, and the second fifteen for three
years.

Casual vacancies (caused by death, resignation, or disqualification,
were to be filled by a vote of the Senate itself, and the member so co-
opted was to retire at the end of the current Triennial Period (Article

Apart from casual vacancies, one-fourth of the Senate would thus

Tri tji 6 evef y three y ears * F° r the purpose of the Senate
® ] ? eCt ; onS the whole countr y was to form a single electoral

^ t0 held 00 P rinci P les proportional
JL ov f r tl° n t (Artlcle „ 32 )- The electorate was to consist of all citi-
hirty years of age who complied with the provisions of the

POWERS OF THE SENATE 87

prevailing electoral laws. There was no property qualification of any
sort (Article 14).

Each Triennial Election was to be from a panel composed of three
times as many qualified persons as there were members to be elected,
of whom two-thirds were to be nominated by the Ddil and one-third
by the Senate : plus such former Senators as desired to be included in
the panel. The method of proposal and selection for nomination to
the Ddil and Senate portions of the panel was to be decided by the
respective Houses, ‘with special reference to the necessity for arrang-
ing for the representation of important interests and institutions in
the country’, and each House was to vote according to principles of
proportional representation (Article 33).

It will be appreciated that the system was an extremely cumbrous
one, and so it proved in actual practice, as we shall see when we come
to consider the first Triennial Election, held in 1925. As a result of
that unfortunate experience, the method of election was changed.

The powers of the new Senate were severely restricted as compared
with those of Second Chambers elsewhere. The Dail was given ex-
clusive legislative.authority over Money Bills as defined in Article 35 ;
but every Money Bill was to be sent to the Senate for its recommenda-
tions. The Senate was obliged to return the Bill to the Ddil within
twenty-one days, and the Ddil might accept or reject all or any of
the Senate’s recommendations (Article 38). The subject of Money
Bills is discussed at length in Chapter XXXH.

With regard to Bills, other than Money Bills, received from the
Ddil, the Senate was given a power of suspension of 270 days. The
Senate had a full power of amendment over such Bills, but if it exer-
cised this power in a manner not acceptable to the Ddil, or if it re-
jected or failed to pass any such Bill, the Bill, after the expiration of
nine months from the time it left the Ddil, was to be deemed to have
been passed by both Houses in the form in which it had been passed
by the Ddil (Article 38). No resolution or other action of the Ddil
was necessary before the Bill could be sent to the Governor-General
for his signification of the King’s Assent. This nine months’ period
was a compromise between the six months desired by the Provisional
Government and the minimum of one year urged by the Southern
Unionists.

There was a provision that a Joint Sitting of both Houses might
be convened at the request of the Senate, for the purpose of debating,
but not of voting upon, the proposals of any non-Money Bill received
from the Ddil, or any amendment thereof (Article 38). In the absence

• 88 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SENATE

of the power of joint voting (which had been pressed for by the
Southern Unionists but not conceded), this was an entirely use-
less provision for the removal of deadlock. No attempt was ever
made to operate it, and it was deleted from the Constitution in
1928.

A much greater power than the power of suspension was the right
given to the Senate by Article 47 to force a referendum. A Bill passed,
or deemed to have been passed, by both Houses might be suspended
for ninety days on the written demand of two-fifths of the members
of the Dail or of a majority of the members of the Senate, presented
to the President of the Executive Council within seven days after the
Bill had been passed or deemed to have been passed. The Bill had
to be submitted to a referendum if such was demanded within the
period of ninety days (a) by a resolution of the Senate assented to by
three-fifths of its members, or (6) by a petition signed by not less than
one-twentieth of the voters on the register. Apart from the right to
demand a referendum, it will be seen that Article 47 operated in-
directly to increase the Senate’s power of suspension from nine
months to twelve. For, when a Bill had been suspended for 270 days,
it could be suspended for a further period of ninety days on the writ-
ten demand of a majority of the members of the Senate. Even if the
further steps necessary for a referendum were not proceeded with,
the Bill could not become law until the ninety-day period within
which such steps could be taken had expired. These referendum pro-
visions did not apply to Money Bills, or to Bills declared by both
Houses to be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public
peace, health, or safety.

Article 47 was undoubtedly a valuable safeguard; but, until its
deletion from the Constitution in 1928 (in circumstances which will
be recounted in their place) no occasion arose for the exercise by the

Senate of the right to demand a referendum, and it never was in fact
exercised.

The Senate had the right to initiate Bills (Article 39) and the

manner in and extent to which this power was exercised are dis-
cussed m Chapter XXX.

Senators were excluded from membership of the Executive Council
2 *®* the Cabmet )- The Executive Council was to consist of not more
inLT e \ n ° r than five Ministers (Article 51), all of whom had
who wJT T S ° (Article 52). Under Article 55, Ministers

bv tJ p members of Executive Council might be appointed
by the Representative of the Crown on the nonun 4m of the MI,

EXTERN MINISTERS 89

the total number of Ministers (including members of the Executive
Council) not to exceed twelve. Such ‘Extern* Ministers, as they came
to be called, were to be responsible solely to the Dail for the adminis-
tration of the Departments of which they were the head (Article 56).
In the absence of any restriction in the Constitution, the Extern
Ministers could have been members of either House, or of neither;
but in the short period during which this constitutional novelty was
tried no member of the Senate was appointed. All Ministers were,
however, given a right of audience in the Senate (Article 57).

Three Extern Ministers were appointed during Mr. Cosgrave’s
first Administration (December 1922), and all three — Messrs. Patrick
Hogan, J. J. Walsh, and Finian Lynch — were members of the Dail,
holding respectively the portfolios of Agriculture, Posts and Tele-
graphs, and Fisheries. The experiment was not a success. Mr. Hogan,
who was a man of outstanding ability, was in charge of one of the
most important Departments of State, and it was politically and ad-
ministratively inconvenient that he should be outside the Cabinet.
Mr. Walsh freely availed himself of his undoubted constitutional
right to criticize the Executive Council on major matters of policy,
and this did not make for cohesion. For these and other reasons the
experiment was discontinued. Though the Articles relating to Extern
Ministers remained in the Constitution, no such Ministers were ap-
pointed after the dissolution of May 1927, and thenceforward the
Executive Council assumed full collective responsibility for all the
Departments of State.

The remaining Articles of the Constitution affecting the Senate can
be shortly summarized. There were the usual provisions regarding
parliamentary privilege (Articles 18 and 19) and against dual mem-
bership (Article 16). The Chairman of the House was given a casting
vote, but not an originating vote (Article 22). The payment of mem-
bers was mandatory and the provision of free travelling facilities
optional (Article 23). Finally, there was to be one parliamentary
session in each year and the sessions of the Senate were not to be
concluded without its consent (Article 24).

It will be recalled that thirty members of the first Senate were to
be nominated by the President of the Executive Council and that the
remaining thirty were to be elected by the Dail; also, that it had been
.agreed with the Southern Unionists that the President’s nominations
were to be made ‘in manner calculated to represent minorities or
interests not represented adequately in the Ddil’ and on the advice
of certain named bodies: ‘the stipulation as to consultation not to

90 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SENATE

be embodied in the Constitution, but to be contained in an undertak-
ing to be embodied in a resolution of the new Parliament’.

Pursuant to this agreement, the following resolution was passed by
the Dail on the 25th October 1922, on the motion of Mr. Cosgrave:
‘That it is expedient that the President of the Executive Council, in
nominating the nominated members of the Senate, should, with a
view to the providing of representation for groups of all parties [sic]
not adequately represented in the Chamber, consult with representa-
tive persons and bodies, including the following :

‘Chamber of Commerce, the Royal College of Physicians of
Ireland, the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, the Benchers of
the Honourable Society of King’s Inns, Dublin, the Incorporated
Law Society of Ireland, Councils of the County Boroughs of the
Irish Free State.’

The new Constitution came into force on the 6th December 1922.
At the meeting of the Ddil held on that day Mr. Cosgrave was elected
President of the Executive Council without opposition. On the same
day he announced to the House his nominations for the Senate in
alphabetical order, as follows :

John Bagwell
Rt. Hon. H. G. Burgess
The Countess Dowager of Desart
J. C. Dowdall
The Earl of Dunraven
Sir Thomas H. Grattan Esmonde,
Bart.

Sir Nugent Talbot Everard, Bart.
Edmund W. Eyre
Martin Fitzgerald
Rt. Hon. Baron Glenavy
Dr. Oliver St. John Gogarty
James Perry Goodbody
The Earl of Granard
Captain J. H. Greer
Henry S. Guinness

Benjamin Haughton
The Marquess of Headfort
Arthur Jackson
Rt. Hon. Andrew Jameson
Sir John Keane, Bart.

The Earl of Kerry
General Sir Bryan Mahon
The Earl of Mayo
James Moran
Sir Horace Plunkett
Sir William Hutcheson Poe,
Bart.

Mrs. J. Wyse Power
Dr. George Sigerson
The Earl of Wicklow
W. B. Yeats

l knowled & e of Ireland must agree that this was
to 6 r 1St ' ? n ° f the thirty ^ ht be described as belongii

l k r n a$ Southem Unionists > a * d ^ong the

^ **°&*** service to their <5unt

ways. Lord Dunraven, Lord Mayo, and Sir Hutchesc

THE NOMINATED SENATORS 91

Poe had been members of the Irish Landlords’ Convention of 1903,
which had paved the way .for the beneficent Wyndham Act, 1903, in
relation to land purchase. Mr. Jameson was a leader of the Southern
Unionists, and he and Mr. Guinness were directors of the Bank of
Ireland. Sir Nugent Everard was closely associated with projects for
industrial development and a pioneer of tobacco-growing in Ireland.
Sir Horace Plunkett had been chairman of the Irish Convention, and
his name was a household word in connection with the co-operative
movement in agriculture. Lady Desart had founded the Kilkenny
Woollen Mills, and was noted for her social and philanthropic
activities in that county. Captain Greer was the director of the
National Stud at the Curragh and a recognized authority on
blood stock. Practically all of the sixteen had some special quality
which they could bring to the deliberations of the new Second
Chamber.

Among the remaining fourteen commerce and administration were
well represented, as well as regional interests. Mr. Burgess had been
Director-General of Transport in Ireland during the Great War, and
at the time of his nomination to the Senate he was the general
manager of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway. Messrs.
Dowdall and Haughton were well-known figures in commercial
circles in the south of Ireland, where they were directors of numerous
companies. The old nationalism, which had no spokesman in the
Dail, was to be represented in the Senate by men like Sir Thomas
Esmonde, who had been a Member of Parliament continuously from
1885 to 1919, and Mr. Martin Fitzgerald, the proprietor of the
Freeman's Journal. The Earl of Granard, unlike his fellow peers in
the new House, had never been a Unionist. He was the King’s Master
of the Horse and a life-long supporter of the Home Rule movement,
holding the post of Assistant Postmaster-General in Sir Henry
Campbell Bannerman’s Liberal Administration of 1906. Sir Bryan
Mahon was a distinguished Irish soldier whose tenure of office as
Commander-in-Chief of the British Forces in Ireland from 1916 to
1918 had been marked by an insight and a sympathy with Irish life
not commonly associated with the holder of that post. Mr. W. B.
Yeats’s nomination was a desjerved recognition of the honour he had
brought to his native land as the greatest living poet in the English-
speaking world.

Though this list is of a quality that silences criticism, it seems
worth noting that it did not contain the name of a single solicitor or
practising barrister. The omission is curious in view of the fact that

92 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SENATE

the Benchers of the King’s Inns and the Incorporated Law Society
were mentioned in the formal resolution of the Ddil among the bodies
which it was expedient for the President to consult when making his
nominations. Lord Glenavy, as a former Lord Chief Justice and Lord
Chancellor, was an automatic choice, and did not owe his nomina-
tion to the Benchers. The legal element proved to be entirely
absent from the elected half of the new House; and for the first
year of its existence, until the co-option of the late Mr. S. L. Brown,
K.C., the acknowledged leader of the Bar, the Senate was to some
extent handicapped by the lack of legal knowledge among its
members.

For the thirty members to be elected by the Ddil, the system of
proportional representation adopted was that of the single trans-
ferable vote, with certain modifications rendered necessary by reason *
of the electorate being so small and the number to be elected corres-
pondingly large. The Rules were approved by the Ddil on the 1st
November 1922, and nominations opened on that day and closed at
12 noon on the 7th December following. Voting papers were distri-
buted at 3 p.m. on the 7th December and the poll closed two hours
later. 1

The election contained many elements of farce, and the blame for
this is attributable not to the system but to the circumstances of the
time. In the first place, of a total Ddil membership of 128, only
eighty-six had taken their seats; most of the rest were anti-Treaty
followers of Mr. De Valera, but some had been killed on both sides
in the Civil War. Of the eighty-six who attended the Ddil, five, for
one reason or another, did not vote in the election. Thus the effective
electorate was reduced to eighty-one. Next, it must be remembered
that, with the exception of the Labour Party, there were no political
parties in any strict sense in the Ddil. The main body consisted of
upwards of fifty Griffith-Collins supporters who gave general support
to Mr. Cosgrave now that the other two leaders were dead ; but no
Ministerial party had as yet been evolved from them. There were
seventeen members of the Labour Party and the balance was made
up of farmers. Independents, and the four representatives of Dublin
University. Normally, a political party will not put forward at an
election many candidates in excess of the numbers it can hope to
return; but this rather amorphous condition of the Ddil resulted in
a plethora of candidates. Further, the right of an individual mem-

THE SENATE ELECTION 93

ber of the Dail to propose candidate was not limited by the rules,
and this fact led to a curious situation. Mr. Cosgrave, in consulting
county councils, chambers of commerce, and other representative
bodies with regard to the nominated half of the Senate, had received
names far in excess of the number for whom he could provide in that
half. So he took the course of proposing these for the elected half,
thus giving the Ddil the opportunity of choosing them if it so wished ;
and he explained the situation to the members immediately after the
conclusion of the sitting on the 4th 'December, in a short statement
which was not published in the Official Report. 1

The interaction of these factors made the election one of the most
remarkable that can ever have been held under proportional repre-
sentation. The electors numbered only eighty-one, and there were
113 candidates for the thirty seats. The first preferences were distri-
buted as follows : .

Candidates with 4 first preferences 1

Candidates with 3 first preferences 17

Candidates with 2 first preferences 11

Candidates with 1 first preference 4

Thus thirty-three candidates exhausted the eighty-one first preferences
between them, and the remaining eighty candidates received no first
preferences at all. Of these eighty candidates, no less than seventy-
two got no votes whatever in any of the thirty-five counts which were
necessary before the final result was ascertained. As the quota was
2-6, any candidate with three or more first preferences was certain
of election; actually, any candidate who obtained two first prefe-
rences was elected, and the last five successful candidates were elected
although they failed to reach the quota.

Among the defeated candidates were a number of men who would
have made admirable Senators, such as Mr. James McNeill, who -
afterwards succeeded Mr. T. M. Healy as Governor-General; Major
Bryan Cooper, who later, as a member of the Ddil, did more than
any other man to reconcile the old order and the new ; Lord Mont-
eagle, who had spent a lifetime in the service of his country ; and Dr.
Lombard Murphy, who occupied, as he does to-day, an outstanding
position in the commercial life of the city of Dublin.

The result of the election was announced in the Ddil on the 8th
December 1922, as follows :

1 Irish Independent, 5 December 1922.

94 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SENATE

1. Mrs. Alice Stopford Green 16. Thomas Linehan

2. Sir John Purser Griffith 17. John T. O’Farrell

3 . James G. Douglas 18. Richard A. Butler

4. Brian O’Rourke 19. Thomas W. Westropp Bennett

5 . Colonel Maurice Moore 20. Dr. Henry L. Barniville

6. William J. Molloy 21. Peter De Loughry

7. James MacKean 22. Cornelius J. Irwin

8. Mrs. E. Costello 23. Edward Mansfield

9. Dr. William O’Sullivan 24. Edward MacLysaght

10. John MacLoughlin 25. Edward MacEvoy

11. Patrick W. Kenny 26. George Nesbitt

12. William Barrington 27. Joseph C. Love

13. Michael Duffy 28. James J. Parkinson

14. Thomas MacPartlin 29. John J. Counihan

15 Thomas Farren 30. Michael O’Dea

The first fifteen were to sit for nine years and the second fifteen for
three years.

In view of all the circumstances, the result was better than might
have been expected. Spectacular results were not to be looked for,
but the list contained such names as Alice Stopford Green, who was
Ireland’s most distinguished historian; Sir John Purser Griffith,
Ireland’s most celebrated engineer, as well as the Maecenas of the
arts in Dublin ; and Colonel Maurice Moore, a distinguished soldier
in whose family a patriotic activity in Irish politics had been some-
thing of a tradition. None of the thirty had previous legislative ex-
perience, but Mr. Douglas had been a prominent member of the
committee which drafted the Constitution, and had given much
thought to constitutional problems. Commercial interests were repre-
sented by such men as Mr. Moran, a past chairman of the Dublin
Port and Docks Board, and Mr. O’Dea, the head of a large. business
in Dublin. There were two members of the medical profession, and
the horse-breeding industry had its spokesman in Mr. Parkinson, the
noted owner and trainer. But the list is chiefly noteworthy for the fact
that two classes were represented in it which are essential to the com-
position of a balanced Second Chamber but which found no place in
the nominated list. These are the farmers (as distinct from the large
landowners) and organized labour. The farmers had some eight or
nine elected members, including Mr. Butler, the chairman of the Irish
Farmers Union, and Mr. Counihan, a member of the Executive of
the Irish Cattle Traders’ Association. The Labour Party had five

REPRESENTATIVE NATURE OF THE HOUSE 95

members, one of whom resigned without taking his seat ; the remain-
ing four, Messrs. Duffy, Farren, MacPartlin, and O’Farrell, were all
first-class men, whose activities in the Senate greatly enhanced its
prestige.

Taking the Senate as a whole, and apart from the absence of
adequate legal representation, we see it as a body admirably qualified
for the task of expert revision which was to be its main function
under the Constitution. It was much more truly a microcosm of the
country as a whole than was the Ddil, comprising as it did representa-
tives of the professions, commerce, agriculture, letters, organized
labour, banking, and the landlord interest. The danger of over-
centralization was avoided, for of the total of sixty members only
twenty-four live'd in or near the capital. The remaining thirty-six
lived or had residences elsewhere in the country, though some few,
such as Lord Kerry and Lord Dunraven, resided for the most part
in England. Of the twenty-six counties forming the Irish Free State
only five (Carlow, Cavan, Leitrim, Mayo, and Westmeath) had no
representative in the first Senate. By provinces, Leinster (exclusive of
the City of Dublin) had eighteen Senators, Munster had thirteen,
Connacht three, and Ulster two.

Throughout the thirteen years’ history of the Senate, allegations
were dishonestly made by some, and ignorantly repeated by others,
to the effect that it was predominantly a Protestant and Freemason
body. It is distasteful to take cognizance of such matters, but in view
of the widespread character of these allegations it is desirable that the
facts should be put on record. The first Senate consisted of thirty-six
Catholics and twenty-four non-Catholics.Not all of the non-Catholics
were Protestants; Lady Desart, for example, was a Jewess, and no less
than three Senators were members of the Religious Society of Friends.
The proportion of non-Catholics to Catholics decreased as time went
on, so that the largest number of non-Catholics ever present in the
Senate was twenty-four out of a total of sixty.

part n

THE FIRST TRIENNIAL PERIOD
6th DECEMBER 1922 TO 5th DECEMBER 1925

* Choosing each stone and poising every weight ,

Trying the measures of the breadth and height;

Here pulling down, and there erecting new.

Founding a firm State by proportions true

Andrew Marvell, The First Anniversary.

‘ The main need for which a Senate is constructed is that all legis-
lative measures may receive a second consideration by a body different
in quality from the primary representative assembly and, if possible,
superior or supplementary in intellectual qualifications

Henry Sidgwick, The Elements of Politics

(1891), p. 445.

CHAPTER V

THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR

Tactics of the Irregulars — Mr. De Valera's association with them —
Outrages against members of the Dail— Execution of imprisoned Ir-
regular leaders — Mr. De Valera’s Christmas Message — Campaign of
intimidation , kidnapping , and arson against Senators — Sabotage and
murder — Condemnation by Cardinal Logue and the Hierarchy — The
beginning of the end— The Leader of the Parliamentary Opposition de-
nounces the attack upon society — The ‘ Cease Fire' order— Senators
Jameson and Douglas as intermediaries — The Government's peace con-
ditions — Rejection of Mr. De Valera's alternative proposals — The end
of the Civil War.

IVIonths before the first meeting of the Senate, the Irregular rebel
forces had lost all hope of overthrowing, by victory in the field, the
Government established by the will of the people. Their tactics were
then directed to the following ends : (1) by intimidation, arson, and
assassination, to prevent the legislature and the Judiciary from func-
tioning; (2) by arson and plunder on a colossal scale, to drive the
land-owning class, principally Protestant, out of the country; (3) by
fire, mine, and bomb, wrecking of railway trains and stations, des-
truction of the lighting and water supply of towns and other means,
to reduce the economid life of the country to ruin, and so to render
government impossible. They would make a desert and call it a
republic.

On the 13th November 1922 ‘President’ De Valera addressed a
letter 1 to each member of the ‘Army Council’, in which he gave the
names of the men whom he had nominated to form his ‘Cabinet’
and requested formal approval for these nominations. In this letter

1 This and other documents quoted or referred to in this paragraph were
cited by General Mulcahy in the debate on the Army Pensions Bill, 1932 [Dail
Debates, xliv, 222-43).

100 THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR

he stated that ‘in regard to Defence, the Chief of Staff agrees that for
the present the best plan would be that his name and mine should
appear on any official document relating to the Department of
Defence’. On the 30th November following, the ‘Chief of Staff’
(Liam Lynch), with whom ‘President’ De Valera was thus associated,
sent to ‘O.C.s all Battalions’ instructions for operations against the
‘enemy’. There were no less than fourteen categories of persons who
were directed to be ‘shot at sight’, including all members of the Pro-
visional Parliament who had voted in favour of the Army Emergency
Powers Resolution (27th-28th September 1922), which had set up
Military Courts empowered to inflict the death penalty; ‘members
of Senate in List A’; High Court judges; ‘proprietors, directors,
editors, sub-editors and leader-writers of hostile press in Ireland’;
and even ‘aggressive Free State supporters’. The residences ‘and,
where mentioned, the offices’ of all persons in these categories were
to be destroyed, as well as the residences of all Senators ; and in-
cluded in the proposed holocaust were the residences of ‘Imperialists
(ex-D.L. type)’. These Deputy Lieutenants of counties were mostly
Protestants.

It is proposed here to recount the' result of these instructions in ;
the case of members of the Senate ; but it is important to remember/ .
that Senators were by no means the only, or even the worst, sufferers.

A complete list of outrages committed by the Irregulars against per-
sons and property, with brief details of each, would fill a volume the
size of this book. So far as members of the Ddil were concerned, a
very few examples must suffice. On the 7th December 1922, just after
leaving their hotel to attend a meeting of the House, Deputy Sean
Hales was 'shot dead on the Dublin Quays and his companion
Padraic O Maille, the Deputy-Chairman of the Ddil, was gravely
wounded, the assassins making good their escape. On the 28tb
December a land-mine was exploded in Deputy McCullough’s music
warehouse in one of the principal thoroughfares in Dublin, blowing
out the whole front of the premises on to the street. On the 10th
December Deputy McGarry’s house in Dublin was destroyed by fire
and his little son, aged seven, died of his burns within a week, the
jury at the inquest returning a verdict of ‘wilful murder’. On the 13th
January Mr. Cosgrave’s house was reduced to ashes. On the 11th
/ ’• February. Dr. T. F. O’Higgins, the father of Kevin O’Higgins, was
( murderedvin-his Bouse at S(radbally, Queen’s County, his body being
riddled with bullets in the'presence of his wife and seventeen years
old daughter.

EXECUTION OF IRREGULAR LEADERS 101

As a reprisal for the assassination of Deputy Hales and the at-
tempted assassination of the Deputy-Chairman of the D4il, four of
the Irregular leaders (Rory O’Connor, Liam Mellowes, Joseph
McKelvey, and Richard Barrett), who were at that time imprisoned
in Mountjoy Gaol, were executed on the following morning by order
of the Executive Council. This stern action was, of course, entirely
illegal, and caused much misgiving in the minds of many, both in the
Dail and outside it, whose support for the Government in all legiti-
mate measures against the Irregulars, however drastic, was not in
doubt. ‘While the existence of this nation is at stake’, said Mr.
O’Higgins, ‘there can be but one code— though it sounds a grim
code — whereby to judge the actions of those who have beea^as^
responsible for the restoration of order here, and that i

Salus populi supremo lex' But the doubts of others .-well ex->
pressed by Deputy Fitzgibbon : | (

‘Let them (the Executive Council] come here and get Uughprityfor
any form of drastic action that they please against the^^jle who c
have been concerned in the rebellion against organized GoVetiflf$n^
here. I confess that it seems to me that the men who suffered this
morning were treated with extraordinary leniency in being allowed to
live so long. I do not seek ... to voice any passion or sympathy with
them at all. They, so far as one could form an opinion from what one
has read and heard, particularly deserved their fate as much as any
men who have been executed in this country during the last fortnight
or so, but they deserved their fate for something they did not do
yesterday, but something they did weeks — or it may be months —

ago I do appeal to them not to continue the policy that appears

to have been commenced to-day.’ 1

However this action of the Executive may be regarded from the

ethical standpoint, it proved to be an effective deterrent, for no other
member of the legislature was assassinated during the progress of the
Irregular campaign.

The list of outrages against the persons and property of members

of the Senate, which will be given in chronological order, may be
suitably prefaced by a ‘Christmas Mes|S§&Vr&ue<i over the name of
‘President’ De Valera, less than three' , montbs after the issue of the
Joint Pastoral by the Hierarchy. 2

1 Dail Debates, ii, 66. £

2 Published in a sheet entitled Poblachf na i-Eireann
dated 28 December 1922.

\ireatm: War News No .“122,

102

THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR

Government of the Republic.

Greetings to every Soldier and Citizen of the Republic. As we
consecrate ourselves anew to the achievement of the Independence
of our country, and pray for our comrades who have fallen in the
fight, let us humbly beg Almighty God so to enlighten and direct us
that we may do His Will and obtain His Blessing in all our efforts to
bring to our harrassed [sic] people the liberty, the peace and the
happiness which they need and desire.

On behalf of the Government and Army Command.

(. signed) £amon De Valera.

Christmas , 1922.

The Constitution came into force on the 6th December 1922, and
from that date until the ‘Cease Fire Order’ issued by ‘President’ De
Valera on the 27th April 1923 the following is the tale of outrage
against Senators. Most of the occurrences were literally, as well as
figuratively, deeds of darkness, and mere shootings at residences are
omitted, as being too numerous to be recorded.

6th December 1922. Senator Martin Fitzgerald, the proprietor of
the Freeman's Journal, received the following communication from
' the Acting O.C., Dublin Brigade’ :

‘In spite of repeated warnings, you have refused to obey Orders
issued to you on several occasions by Command H.Q. and G.H.Q.,
I.R.A. You were clearly told either to (a) hand your paper over to
Free State Provisional Government to be run by them as a Free
State organ or ( b ) to be a free Press. You have refused to do either
and have instead persisted in your campaign of misrepresentation
against the I.R. A.

‘You are therefore ordered to leave Ireland before 12 o’clock noon
on the 8th December, 1922. The penalty for refusal to obey this
order, or for being found in Ireland after 12 o’clock noon on the 8th
December, is death.’

Beyond publishing this communication in facsimile in his news-
paper on the 9th December (in the place of the usual leading article),
Senator Fitzgerald ignored this threat to murder him. He attended the
first meeting of the Senate two days later, and died in his bed some
years afterwards.

10th December . Three bombs were hurled through the plate-glass
window of Senator Mrs. Wyse Power’s business premises in Camden
Street, Dublin. Fortunately, two of them failed to explode, but, even

OUTRAGES AGAINST SENATORS 103

so, considerable damage was done. Mrs. Wyse Power had been an
executive member of the Ladies’ Land League in Mr. Parnell’s time,
a member of the Gaelic League since its inception, and one of the
founders of Sinn F6in.

26th December. Senator Sir William Hutcheson Poe, who was then
seventy-four years of age, was held up at midnight by the Irregulars
while driving in his motor-car some distance from his home in the
Queen’s County, He was ordered to stand by the hedge, and, think-
ing he was about to be murdered, he asked for time to write to his
wife. He was not shot, however, but his watch and money were
stolen and his car was sprinkled with petrol and burned before his
eyes. He was then ordered to walk home, but he replied that this was
impossible, owing to his age and his physical disability (he had lost a
leg in the Sudan so long ago as 1884). Ultimately, he had to wait in
the chill December air until his chauffeur could procure a second car
to take him home. The Irregulars succeeded in driving this aged and
soldierly figure from the country in which he had his roots and
which he loved ; for shortly afterwards he took up his residence in
England, although he continued to attend meetings of the Senate until
his resignation in 1924.

9th January 1923. Half an hour after midnight a band of armed in-
cendiaries arrived outside Marlfield, Clonmel, County Tipperary, the
ancestral home of Senator John Bagwell. They roused Senator Bag-
well and his family, and stated that ‘they had orders to burn the
house, as Mr. Bagwell was a member of the Free State Senate’. The
place contained valuable collections of china and works of art, and
also one of the finest private libraries in the country, amassed by the
Senator’s father, Richard Bagwell, the historian. Within a short time
the petrol had done its work, and the premises were gutted.

12th January. At about 8 p.ra. a motor-car, containing three men
and one woman, drove up to the Dublin residence of Senator Oliver
Gogarty, a well-known surgeon and man of letters who had been
Arthur Griffith’s medical adviser. The occupants requested Dr.
Gogarty to accompany them to an urgent case. In view of the sus-
picious circumstances, he demurred, whereupon the men, dropping
all pretence, forced him into the car at the point of the revolver and
drove him, blindfolded, to a house on the outskirts of Dublin, on the
banks of the river Liffey. While there, he managed to escape and ran
for his life to the river. Though a fusillade of shots was fired after
him, he was not hit. He jumped into the river, which was in flood,
and after swimming in the icy waters for a quarter of an hour he

104 THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR

pulled himself up on the opposite bank and escaped. He was suc-
coured at a near-by house and obtained a change of clothing ata Civic
Guard Barracks, after which he was able to return home. Thereafter,
his house was given an armed guard by the Government.

29th January. Palmerstown, the home of Senator the Earl of
Mayo, and one of the most beautiful mansions in the County Kildare,
was entered by armed men after dark. The Earl and his Countess
were given a short time in which to leave, and then the rooms, except
the servants’ wing, were sprinkled with petrol and set alight. In a
short time nothing remained but the gaping, blackened walls. Of the
numerous old masters, only three — all by Sir Joshua Reynolds —
were carried out in time to save them from the flames. When asked
if he would make a new home in England or elsewhere, Lord Mayo,
who was seventy-one years old, replied, ‘No! I will not be driven
from my own country.’ He added that he would not even leave his
ruined home and demesne, but would live in the servants’ quarters.

29th January. At 1 a.m. armed Irregulars broke into Kilteragh, Fox-
rock, County Dublin, the home of Senator Sir Horace Plunkett. Sir
Horace was absent in the United States, but his secretary and chauf-
feur, who were sleeping on the premises, were told peremptorily to
clear out. A powerful land-mine was placed in the fire grate of the
main hall, and the resultant explosion wrecked practically the whole
building. There was a slight outbreak of fire, but it was extinguished.
Sir Horace’s comment was ‘It is not so sad as if it had been a poor
man’s one-roomed house.’

The Government placed a guard upon the premises, but at 2.15
a.m. on the following morning (30th January), supposing the danger
hour to be past, the men returned to their barracks. The raiders, who
had been watching for their opportunity, immediately swooped down
with tins of petrol and completed the work of destruction. Half an
hour later the place was a blazing furnace. Sir Horace’s secretary,
who was sleeping in the only habitable room, was roused by the
chauffeur and brought by means of a life-line to the ground, and so
escaped being burnt to death. The hose which had been used to ex-
tinguish the small outbreak on the previous night had been rendered
useless by the incendiaries. The mansion and its whole contents, in-
cluding many thousands of pounds’ worth of pictures, were destroyed,

29th January. While walking with his wife, after dark, near his
home at Howth, County Dublin, Senator John Bagwell (whose place
near Clonmel had been destroyed three weeks earlier) was stopped by .
armed men, forced into a waiting motor-car at the point of the re-

OUTRAGES AGAINST SENATORS 105

volver, and driven away. Stern action was taken by the military as
soon as the kidnapping became known. A proclamation was posted
all over Dublin, bearing the date and time ‘31st January, 1923.
9 a.m.’ and signed by Major-General Hogan, G.O.C., Dublin Com-
mand. It recited the circumstances, and concluded: ‘Warning is
hereby given that, in the event of the said Senator John Bagwell not
being set, unharmed, at liberty, and permitted to return to his own
home, within 48 hours of the date and hour of this Proclamation,
punitive action will be taken against several associates in this con-
spiracy, now in custody or otherwise.’

After a two hours’ drive, Senator Bagwell was brought to a farm-
house in north County Dublin, where he was kept under guard. He
was moved the next night to another commandeered house in the
vicinity; and from this he escaped at 11 a.m. on the following day
(1st February), by climbing through a window while his captors were
at breakfast. He ran for a considerable distance, and eventually ob-
tained a lift from a passing motorist, who drove him back to the city.
But for the proclamation, and its warning of further reprisals, it is
possible that he might not have escaped so easily.

1st February. Moore Hall, the beautiful ancestral home of Senator
Colonel Maurice Moore, overlooking Lough Carra, County Mayo,
was totally destroyed. Moore Hall, which was the property of the
Colonel’s elder brother, the late George Moore, the novelist, was an
historic landmark, for it was from there that the colonel’s grand-
father John Moore marched with his men to join General Humbert
after the French landing at Killala in September 1798 ; and it was in
Moore Hall that the Independence of Connacht was signed. Many
irreplaceable treasures of historic interest to Ireland were destroyed
in this fire. *

1st February. At 10 p.m. the residence of Senator Thomas Linehan
at Whitechurch, County Cork, was visited by incendiaries. The whole
place was sprinkled with petrol, which was set alight, and the house
and its contents were destroyed.

3rd February. About 7 p.m. a party of ten or twelve young men
casually entered a restaurant owned by Senator Mrs. Wyse Power
in Henry Street, Dublin, sat at separate tables and ordered tea, there
being nothing in their manner to excite suspicion. When tea was
about to be served, however, they produced bottles of petrol, which
they sprinkled on the table-cloths and carpets. But the hysterical
screams of the women in the restaurant so alarmed the miscreants
that they were unable to get the place well alight, and they escaped

106 THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR

into the crowd which had collected. The fire was extinguished with-
out a great deal of damage being done.

4th February. The summer residence of Senator Dr. O’Sullivan at
Dooks, Glenbeigh, County Kerry, was burnt to the ground, the
house being first looted.

5th February. Senator Dr. George Sigerson, who, at eighty-four
years of age, was the most venerable figure in Irish public life, wrote
to the President of the Executive Council resigning his seat in the
Senate, owing to intimidation. In an interview with the Press, he
stated that he had received written notice that, if he continued his
membership, his house (in Clare Street, Dublin) would be burnt. ‘I
attended the Senate every day, taking the same risk as my colleagues ;
but if I continue to act my house is to be burnt.’ It contained a
magnificent collection of books, manuscripts, paintings, and minia-
tures, and he probably regarded these as more valuable than his life.
He had been the intimate friend of Irish patriots for more than half
a century, from the time of Smith O’Brien, John Martin, Charles
Kickham, and others of the Young Ireland movement; and he was
the father of the Irish language, having published a book of Irish
poetry so long ago as 1860. He recalled the fact that, after the insur-
rection of Easter Week, 1916, many of the leaders had taken refuge
in his house. ‘ And now,’ he said, * this is the new generation.’

As Dr. Sigerson’s resignation had been wrongly sent to the Presi-
dent of the Executive Council instead of to the Chairman of the'
Senate, it was ineffective. Mr. Cosgrave persuaded him that his
resignation might set a bad example ; and so, though the threat to
him was not withdrawn, he continued with great courage to attend
the Senate, of which he remained a member until his death in 1925.
Happily, his house escaped destruction.

16th February. Mullaboden, Ballymore Eustace, County Kildare,
a stately mansion which was the home of Senator Sir Bryan Mahon
and Lady Mahon, was burnt down in daylight, with all its contents.
Sir Bryan and Lady Mahon were absent at the time. The incendiaries
arrived in a stolen motor-lorry, with seventy tins of petrol. The
windows were broken to ensure a good supply of air. The servants,
who were unarmed, were compelled to pile the furniture in the middle
of the rooms, to facilitate the holocaust. The petrol was then applied,
with the usual result. A gramophone, a pair of field-glasses, and Sir
Bryan’s military uniform (he had been G.O.C. at Salonika and else-
where) were taken as trophies. As the lorry drove away, one of the
raiders was seen to don the uniform.

OUTRAGES AGAINST SENATORS 107

19th February. Senator Sir John Keane’s mansion, Belmont, Cap-
poquin, County Waterford, was burnt to the ground.

22nd February. Desart Court, County Kilkenny, was so effectively
fired that nothingremained but the bare walls, though a quantity of
furniture was saved from the flames. This was one of the finest
mansions in the south of Ireland, and was the home of the Earl of
Desart, whose sister-in-law, the Countess Dowager of Desart, was a
member of the Senate.

23rd February. Senator Oliver Gogarty’s house in the west of
Ireland, Renvyle, Connemara, was burnt to ashes, with valuable
modem paintings by Orpen, Augustus John, and others.

26th February. At 11.30 p.m. raiders arrived at Castle Forbes,
County Longford, the Irish seat of Senator the Earl of Granard, and
one of the most magnificent inhabited castles in the British Isles.
Lord and Lady Granard were away in London. A land-mine was
placed in the hail and another in one of the rooms. Fortunately, the
one in the hall failed to explode. The other was so powerful that the
explosion was distinctly heard seven miles away, and all the windows
in the neighbouring village of Newtown Forbes were shattered. Very
great damage was done, but if both mines had detonated the castle
might have been wrecked beyond repair.

9th March. A party of about fifty incendiaries descended upon
Ballynastragh, County Wexford, the country seat of Senator Sir
Thomas Esmonde. Sir Thomas had had the foresight to remove
some of his heirlooms and treasures to the National Museum for
safe keeping, but a number of his possessions of very great value
remained. Petrol was sprayed over everything, and the mansion and
its contents were totally destroyed. Ballynastragh was one of the
beauty spots of Wexford. The original building dated from 1300,
and part of the modern building was four hundred years old.
It had been burnt down once before — by the soldiers of Oliver
Cromwell.

•24th March. Burton Hall, Stillorgan, County Dublin, the seat of
Senator Henry Seymour Guinness, was visited by a band of armed
men. They broke into the mansion and turned out Senator Guinness
and his family. They placed a large tin of gelignite in the basement.
They then sprinkled the upper part of the house with petrol and set it
alight. A match was applied to the fuse of the gelignite, and the mis-
creants beat a retreat. The centre portion of the house was burnt, but
the gelignite failed to explode, and so Burton Hall escaped total
destruction. In anticipation of an attack, Senator Guinness had re-

108 THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR /

moved much of the furniture, and also priceless old manuscripts and
Irish pamphlets of the Restoration period.

26th March. A pantechnicon and a four-ton lorry, both loaded with-
furniture that had been rescued fromDesart Court (burnt on the 22nd
February), were stopped by Irregulars on the road between Desart
Court and Cuffe’s Grange, County Kilkenny. Both vehicles were
sprayed with petrol, set alight, and destroyed with their contents.

It says much for the courage and steadfastness of Senators that,
throughout this appalling period, when no man knew on whom the
blow might next fall, they did not blench or flinch, but discharged
their duties as legislators as though the atmosphere had been one of
serenity. In the nature of things, the situation could not last, for if it
had gone on much longer the economic life of the country would
have been throttled beyond retrieval. When murder and sabotage
were of daily occurrence, it is difficult to particularize, but the follow-
ing may be given as typical outrages. In the month of February the
gas-works at Tralee (a town of over 10,000 inhabitants) were smashed
with sledges, and the town deprived of its lighting supply ; the water-
works at Athlone (7,500 inhabitants) and Maryborough (over 3,000
inhabitants) were destroyed by mine and bomb, and the citizens had
to have recourse to pumps and wells ; and a descent was made by
about fifty Irregulars on the little town of Ballyconnell, County
Cavan, who shot two of the inhabitants dead, looted the shops of
quantities of goods, stole two motor-cars, blew up and burnt a
garage, raided the post office, held up a train, and then fled to their
fastness in the Arigna Mountains. The case of Sligo is typical of
what happened on the railways. Sligo station, one of the most sub-
stantial buildings of its kind in Ireland, was laid in ruins; steam was
got up on one of the engines, six others were coupled to it, and all
seven were sent to their destruction, some falling through the retain-
ing wall into the sea. But the campaign against the railways went
beyond mere sabotage; there were also what the Railway Unions
characterized as ‘murderous attacks on defenceless and inoffensive
railwaymen’. 1 Only one example need be given. The death of an
engine-driver named Daly, in respect of which the coroner’s jury
brought in a verdict of ‘ wilful murder’, was thus referred to by Dean
O’Leary, of Tralee, speaking from the altar :

‘On his way to worship his Creator, Daniel Daly was attacked by
lurking assassins, and a bullet was fired into his body, because he had
shrunk from, and refused to obey, a wrong and wholly unauthorised
1 Irish Times, 26 January 1923.

Condemnation by hierarchy 109

command that would involve the destruction of thousands of pounds’
worth of the property of his employers .’ 1

The Catholic Hierarchy, who had, in the previous October, for-
mally condemned all such attacks as murder but whose words had

been disregarded, returned to the subject in their Lenten Pastorals,
read in the churches of their several dioceses. Excerpts from those of
the four archbishops are sufficiently indicative of the tenour of the
whole.

The Archbishop of Armagh (His Eminence Cardinal Logue) dealt
with Mr. De Valera’s ‘ external association’ policy and hinted at other
factors, such as pride and ambition.

‘Never before in the world’s history did such a wild and destruc-
tive hurricane spring from such a thin, intangible, unsubstantial
vapour. The difference between some equivocal words in an oath ; the
difference between internal and external connection with the British

Commonwealth: this is the only foundation I have ever seen alleged.
Men versed in the subtleties of the schools may understand them;

' men of good, sound, practical common sense shall hardly succeed.
There may be other foundations — pride, jealousy, ambition, self-
interest, even mere sentimentality; but, if they exist, they are kept in
the background. ... It seems as if the powers of darkness were, from
day to day, inspiring with fresh ingenuity the agents of destruction.
The torch has been added to the revolver, the bomb and the road
mine. Before, in some cities and towns no peaceful person could go
for a walk or to transact business without the danger of being killed
or seriously wounded ; now, no quiet family can retire to rest without
the dread of being called out in the night to fly from exploded or
blazing home .’ 2

The Archbishop of Dublin (Most Rev. Dr. Byrne) : ‘ Unfortunately,
the counsel which the Bishops of Ireland, acting in discharge of their
office as Shepherds of God’s flock, gave their people some months
ago has fallen on many unheeding ears. Acts which were declared to
be grave sins are still being committed with appalling frequency .’ 3

The Archbishop of Cashel (Most Rev. Dr. Harty) : ‘ We see around
us many things that bring shame on our motherland. Banks and post
offices are raided ; roads and railways are broken ; private houses are
pillaged and burned to the ground ; the sacredness of human life is set,
at naught; even women and children are done to death by men
guilty of a most grave crime against God and society.’

1 Irish Times, 30 January 1923.

2 Irish Independent, 12 February 1923.

110 THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR

Having referred to the declaration of the bishops in thie previous
October on fundamental points of social morality, Dr. Harty con-
tinued : ‘The Bishops of Ireland were not content with deciding the
moral question ; they also issued an appeal to the young men of
Ireland who were taking part in the sad revolt to return to their
homes and to spare the country further ruin. If my words could reach
them, I would appeal to the young men of the Archdiocese, who are
engaged in this rebellion against our Irish Government, to act in
harmony with the teaching of the Bishops.’ 1

The Archbishop of Tuam (Most Rev. Dr. Gilmartin): ‘It is the
clear teaching of Saint Paul that all power, including the power to
govern, comes from God. The people, according to the common
opinion of theologians, have the right to nominate their rulers. Once
a definite form of government is duly set up by the people, they are
bound to accept it as having come from God. The majority of the
people’s representatives accepted what we call the Treaty. As a result
of that acceptance, a certain form of government has been set up. A
minority were opposed to the acceptance of that Treaty. Instead,
however, of forming a constitutional opposition, they have had re-
course to methods of violence, which include the destruction of life

and property For the gun, the revolver, the bomb and the mine,

substitute argument. For terrorism, substitute an appeal to the
dignity and intelligence of the voter.’ 2

‘President’ De Valera’s views on the subject were, however,
clear and definite. In an interview given to the Daily Mail a few
days before these Pastorals were read he expressed himself as follows :
‘In so far as we are concerned, we are in arms against and resisting
now exactly what the whole nation resisted in the period 1919-21..
The only difference is that in the earlier period England was main-
taining her claims directly ; now she is maintaining them indirectly
through Irishmen. This is a continuance of the former war.’ 3

But the fabric of the ‘Republic’ was beginning to crack. On the
29th January Mr. Liam Deasy, styled ‘Deputy Chief of Staff’, who
had been captured and sentenced to death but reprieved, accepted
immediate and unconditional surrender of all arms and men, and
issued an appeal to the other Irregular leaders, including Messrs. De
Valera, Ruttledge, Derrig, and Aiken, to do likewise. The appeal was
made public by the Government, and in a proclamation dated the

1 Cork Examiner, 19 February 1923.

2 Irish Independent , 12 February 1923.

3 Quoted in the Irish Times, 3 February 1923.

LABOUR ON DEFENCE OF STATE 111

8th February an amnesty was offered to all surrendering with their
arms on or before the 18th February. There was no response from the
leaders, but a certain amount from the rank and file. However, it was
the beginning of the end.

On the 9th March, in the D£il, Mr. Thomas Johnson, the Leader
of the Opposition, made it clear that he and his colleagues of the
Labour Party ranged themselves with the Government in resisting the
attack upon the foundations of the State.

‘I believe it is true to say that a large section of those who are
inspiring the Irregular campaign hold that by a sufficient attack upon
the material resources the State cannot maintain itself. . . . The pre-
sent attack is, in reality, an attack upon the social fabric itself. ... I
think it well to say that in the opinion of the Dail, in the opinion of
those of us on these benches at any rate, and, I am sure, in the opinion
of the Dail as a whole, the attempt to break up the social fabric, once
it is seized upon by the people, will mean that, at any cost and at any
sacrifice, the country will rally to the defence of the State. ... I think
it well to send it out from the D&il that, despite any increase in Esti-
mates that may be called for, even though it is an increase multiplied
one hundred times, even though the private resources of the people
are going to be brought to nothing, still for the sake of maintaining
society in this country the opposition to society must be resisted and
overthrown.’ 1

On the 10th April Lynch, the Irregular ‘Chief of Staff’, was cap-
tured in an engagement in the Knockmealdown Mountains, in County
Waterford, and died later of his wounds. He was a brave but fanatical
man. Four days later Mr. Austin Stack, ‘ Minister for Finance’ in
Mr. De Valera’s ‘Cabinet’, was captured in the same region. In his
possession was a draft memorandum, in his own handwriting, calling
for a general laying down of arms. On the 17th April Mr. Daniel
Breen, another leader, was taken. With most of the leaders gone, the
campaign could not profitably be pursued further; and so, on the
27th April 1923, a long proclamation was issued by ‘President’ De
Valera from ‘Irish Republican Army, G.H.Q., Dublin’, which was
in effect a cease fire order. Concurrently with this proclamation, there
was issued by Mr. Frank Aiken, who had succeeded Lynch as ‘ Chief
of Staff’, an Order addressed to ‘O.C.s, Commands and Indepen-
dent Brigades ’, ordering a suspension of all offensive operations from
noon on the 30th April, ‘in order to give effect to decision of the
Government and Army Council’.

1 D&il Debates, ii, 2279-81.

112 THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR

The Senate now comes into the picture again. 1 On the 30th April
Senator Jameson and Senator Douglas both received letters, marked
‘Confidential’, from Mr. De Valera, requesting them*to meet him
with a view to discussing practical steps for the conclusion of an im-
mediate peace. (Eight years later, he stated that he did not send for
them ; 2 but this statement is not in accordance with fact.) The selec-
tion of these two members of the Senate was peculiar, the more so as
Senator Jameson was Number 1 on ‘ List A’ of Senators who were to
be shot at sight. They replied that, if they met, they could not discuss
peace conditions, but could act as intermediaries only. He answered
that that was his intention.

They saw Mr. De Valera on the 1st May, and he requested them
to endeavour to arrange a conference between members of the
Government and himself, either alone or accompanied by other
leaders associated with him, with a view to the discussion of peace
conditions based on his proclamation. Two days later Senator
Jameson saw Mr. Cosgrave, who was accompanied by two other ’
Ministers, and they authorized him to inform Mr. De Valera that it
was not considered advisable by them that personal negotiations
should take place. They handed Senator Jameson a document, to be
shown to Mr. De Valera, the fundamental conditions of which would
have to be included in any agreement that might be arranged. This
document is as follows :

‘All political action within the country should be based on a
recognition by every party in the State of the following principles of
order :

‘(a) that all political issues, whether now existing or in the future
arising, shall be decided by the majority vote of the elected represen-
tatives of the people :

‘(b) as a corollary to (a) that the people are entitled to have all
lethal weapons within the country in the effective custody or control
of the Executive Government responsible to the people through their
representatives.

‘The acceptance of these principles and practical compliance with
(b) by the surrender of arms to be the preliminary condition for the
release of prisoners, who shall be required to subscribe individually
to (a) and ( b ).’

1 The whole ofwhatfollows regarding these negotiations is summarized from
a statement read by Senator Douglas in the Senate on the 9th May 1923.
[Senate Debates, i, 1018-26.)

2 Bail Debates, xl, 360.

GOVERNMENT’S PEACE TERMS 113

Messrs. Jameson and Douglas were further authorized to inform
Mr. De Valera that:

‘(1) military action against him and his followers would cease
when the arms held by them were delivered into the effectual custody
of the Free State Executive authorities. The arrangements for the
delivery of the arms and the place of their deposit would be made
with as much consideration as possible for the feelings of those con-
cerned :

‘(2) prisoners to be released on the satisfactory fulfilment of (1)
and the signature of each prisoner before release to the conditions of
the document above mentioned :

‘(3) the Free State Government would keep a clear field for Mr.
De Valera and his followers to enable them to canvass for the votes
of the people at the next election, provided they undertook to adhere
strictly to constitutional action.’

The two Senators were also requested to ask Mr. De Valera to give
the names of the leaders on whose behalf he could speak, and to state
his opinion as to what proportion of the rank and file would agree
to be bound by his decision and also as to what amount of accep-
tance the proposals, when approved by him, would receive from the
prisoners.

The terms offered would seem to be the maximum that could safely
be granted by any government having a due regard for its responsi-
bilities to the people; and the language in which they were couched
indicated a desire to avoid bitterness or harsh feelings. They were not,
however, acceptable to Mr. De Valera. Messrs. Jameson and Douglas
saw him three times in six days, at the end of which (7th May) he
produced an alternative draft of his own. In contrast to Mr. Cos-
grave’s, which was short and unambiguous, this was, in the latter’s
words, ‘a long and wordy document, inviting debate where none is
possible’. It contained sounding phrases about ‘the sovereign rights
of this nation’, which were already, in principle, enshrined in the
Constitution, and one of its conditions stipulated that no citizen
should be debarred from Parliament by any political oath. Accep-
tance of this condition would, of course, have abrogated the Treaty
of 1921, which had been accepted by an overwhelming majority of
the votes of the people. Mr. De Valera’s counter-proposals with re-
gard to the lethal weapons in the possession of the Irregulars were so
extraordinary as to merit quotation in full :

‘Assigning to the Republican forces at least one suitable building
in each province, to be used by them as barracks and arsenals, where
i

114 THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR

Republican arms shall be stored, sealed up and defended by a
specially pledged Republican guard — these arms to be disposed of
after the elections by re-issue to their present holders, or in such
other manner as may secure the consent of the Government then
elected.’

Needless to say, Mr. De Valera’s alternative draft was not ac-
cepted by the Government. To use a phrase of Mr. O’Higgins, ‘This
is not going to be a draw, with a re-play in the autumn.’ Senators
Jameson and Douglas conveyed Mr. Cosgrave’s letter of refusal to
Mr. De Valera, from whom they received a courteous acknowledge-
ment, with thanks for their good offices ; and there the matter ended.

The episode produced one result of value, for it established Mr.
De Valera’s acceptance of direct, personal responsibility fortheorders
given to the Irregulars and for the acts done thereunder. ‘With regard
to the condition of the Government that prisoners should individually
sign acceptance of the principles proposed, Mr. De Valera stated that
he did not consider this necessary. When he will sign he will do so on
behalf of all Republican forces, including prisoners, and will assure
himself before signing that prisoners when released will act in the
spirit of the agreement. Mr. De Valera stated that he spoke on behalf
of the combined Republican Government and Army Council, who,
with the exception of one member not available at the moment,
were aware of the proposals made.’

The approach to Senators Jameson and Douglas had been a des-
pairing effort to avoid the consequences of defeat. Very shortly after-
wards, on the 24th May, a proclamation was issued, beginning :

‘To all ranks, from the President.

‘Soldiers of liberty! Legion of the rearguard! The Republic can no
longer be defended successfully by your arms. Further sacrifices on
your part would now be in vain, and continuance of the struggle in
arms unwise in the national interest. Military victory must be allowed
to rest for the moment with those who have destroyed the Republic.’
And more to similar effect.

Concurrently, an Order was issued ‘To all ranks’ by Mr. Frank
Aiken, the ‘ Chief of Staff’ of the Irregulars.

‘Comrades! the arms with which we have fought the enemies of
our country are to be dumped. The foreign and domestic enemies of
the Republic have for the moment prevailed.’ 1

In less flamboyant but more accurate language, it was not the
voice of the Church that had prevailed, nor yet that of right reason,

1 Irish Times , 29 May 1923.

COST OF THE CIVIL WAR 115

but the resistance of the people, standing firmly behind their elected
representatives and their lawful government, to an organized attack
upon society by men whose actions had been characterized by the
Catholic archbishops and bishops of Ireland in the terms which have
already been quoted. The arms so hidden were not again used by that
section of the Republicans which followed Mr. De Valera. It was the
end of the so-called Civil War. On the Irregular side, seventy-three
men had been executed under the powers conferred on the military by
the Army Emergency Powers Resolution, passed by the Dail on the
28th September 1922; and, as has been stated, four others were shot
as a reprisal for the murder of a member of the Dail. Among those
executed was Erskine Childers (24th November 1922), whose great
ability was as unquestioned as his deep sincerity in the cause he had
espoused. The number of soldiers and civilians, including women and
children, killed during the progress of the hostilities must have been
very much larger. The material damage exceeded thirty millions
sterling.

CHAPTER VI

RELATIONS OF SENATE AND DAlL

The Senate's first meeting — Election of Chairman and Vice-Chair-
man — Absence of party system — The Seriate' s conception of its duties
— Irish language and cultural activities — Relations with Government
and Dail — No leader of the House — Administrative difficulties — No
Parliamentary Questions — Legislative congestion — Defence Forces Bill
— Land Bill — Suspension of the Intoxicating Liquor Bill — A flaw in
the Constitution — Public Safety Bill-Attitude of the Senate — Habeas
corpus case — Constitutional difficulty over referendum provision —
De Valera and titles to land — The dissolution — Mr, Cosgrove's tribute
to the Senate — The general election of August 1923.

1 he Senate met on the 11th December 1922, and the Oath was ad-
ministered in public by Mr. E. J. Duggan, Minister without Port-
folio, who was one of the signatories of the Treaty. The occasion was
an historic one. For the first time representative Irishmen, irrespective
of racial origin or religious belief, were assembled together in a Second
Chamber to enact laws for their common country. When Thomas
Davis wrote:

Filled with hate, our Senate sate
To weld anew each fetter's flaw,

he was speaking of an older and an unhappier day. This new Senate
was in a position to realize, in microcosm, Davis’s dream of a
united Ireland wherein all men of goodwill would work together in
a self-respecting, self-governing motherland : and, given the condi-
tions, a spirit of co-operation there engendered and fostered might
in time infuse the whole polity. The growth of such a spirit migh t be
expected to be slow, for natura nihil facit per saltum, and the suspi-
cions begotten of generations of aloofness are not to be dispelled

LORD GLENAVY ELECTED CHAIRMAN 117

overnight. But a beginning must be made somewhere, and it was
made on the 11th December 1922 in the Senate.

A possible line of cleavage arose at once, over the important ques-
tion of the election of a chairman. If the only criterion was to be
suitability for the office, Lord Glenavy was the obvious choice. He
was the only lawyer in the Senate, he had had many years’ parlia-
mentary experience at Westminster, and he had held the highest
judicial posts in the countiy. On the other hand, the majority of the
Senators were Nationalists, and Lord Glenavy’s preferment was due
to the fact that he was of the ascendancy class. He had been a life-
long Unionist, and was Edward Carson’s right-hand man in the
campaign of opposition to Home Rule. The Nationalists at once
made it clear that these things belonged to the dead past. Lord
Glenavy’s election was proposed by Senator John MacLoughlin, an
Ulsterman and a Nationalist. ‘We are prepared’, he said, ‘to treat
every man as a brother Irishman, irrespective of what his politics
were in the past or his religion is in the present.’ Sir Thomas Esmonde,
a former Nationalist Member of Parliament, took the same view.
‘Whatever has happened in the past, however much we may have
differed, there is only one thing before us now, and that is our com-
mon country.’ The opinion of the Labour Party, as expressed by
Senator MacPartlin in homely and rugged phraseology, was not dis-
similar. ‘What we are interested in is the ability of the man whom we
select and for whom we are going to vote. . . . We will vote for the
best man, and we do not want to know whether he is a Colonel or a
Lord or a road worker.’ Though, in the nature of things, they could
not make it manifest on this occasion, the attitude of the ex-Unionists
was the same, and their subsequent actions afforded manifold proof
of their sincerity. ‘The past is dead,’ said one of them, ‘not only for
us but for this countiy. We are assembled here no longer in a
Nationalist or Unionist sense, but merely as members of the Senate.’
In the result. Lord Glenavy was elected to the Chair with only two
dissentients; and Senator Douglas, who had been a member of the
Constitution Committee, was unanimously elected Vice-Chairman.
A good beginning had been made with the spirit of co-operation. 1

The fostering of this spirit was made easier by the fact that there
were no organized political parties, save for the small but influential
Labour Party of five members, whose special position was generally
appreciated. Indeed, a rigid alignment of parties can hardly be said
to have taken place until December 1928, when the election of a
1 Senate Debates, i, 8-20.

118 RELATIONS OF SENATE AND DAlL

number of Mr. De Valera’s supporters, new to the Senate and its
traditions, made that course inevitable. As Senator Jameson said,
‘We have our own individual opinion about things. I do not believe
there is any member of the Senate . . . who is belonging to a party, or
in any way shaping his actions or votes in the interest of any party.’ 1
The truth of this statement is exemplified by the division lists of the
early days. Senators who by tradition and habit of mind might have
been supposed to be in agreement frequently voted on opposite sides.

The general view of the Senate held by members of the Dail was
that it was a cooling chamber of a conservative type. Questions of
national honour, and such matters as the propagation of the Irish
language, were regarded as the prerogative of the popular Chamber.
The refusal of the Senate to accept the role prepared for it occa-
sioned a good deal of surprised annoyance. Among the first Bills
sent by the Dail to the Senate was one to indemnify members of the
British military and police in respect of acts done during the Black
and Tan period and earlier. The Senate refused to pass the Bill, on
the ground of lack of reciprocity, since some Irish soldiers in the
British Army, who had mutinied out of sympathy with the struggle
of their fellow countrymen, were still in prison in Great Britain. The
Senate reconsidered the matter some time later, as the result of an
eloquent appeal made by the head of the Government in person. But
Mr. Cosgrave’s suggestion that such an objection would come more
properly ‘ from the House in which popular feeling is more generously
represented’ was warmly repudiated from all quarters of the Senate.
The comment of Senator W. B. Y eats was typical. * I think it is . . . very
important to this Senate,’ he said, ‘because of the very nature of its
constitution, that we should show ourselves as interested as the D6il
is in every person in this country. We do not represent constituencies ;
we are drawn together to represent certain forms of special know-
ledge, certain special interests, but we are just as much passionately
concerned in these great questions as the D£il.’ 2

In regard to the Irish language, on the 19th April 1923 the Senate
set up a committee to submit to the Government a scheme for the
editing, indexing, and publication of the Irish manuscripts in the
Royal Irish Academy and elsewhere, for the scientific investigation
of the living dialects, and for the compiling and publication of an
adequate dictionary of the older language. The authors of this pro-
ject were Senators W. B. Yeats and Alice Stopford Green. The Com-
mittee heard evidence from the greatest living scholars of the lan-
1 Senate Debates , i, 155. 2 ibid., 167> 168 ,

SENATE AND IRISH LANGUAGE 119

guage, and issued a long Report containing detailed recommenda-
tions. The tenour of the Report is sufficiently indicated by its opening
paragraph:

‘Your Committee is gravely impressed by the responsibility now
laid upon the Saorstdt [Irish Free State] towards the Irish people. For
the first time in many centuries our country, free and independent, is
charged with the pious duty of preserving and making accessible to
Irishmen the mass of learning and tradition which forms the basis of
our national history — a body of manuscript tradition bequeathed to
us by a noble succession of scholars and scribes throughout a thou-
sand years of labour, and further enriched by folk-lore, folk-song and
music, and the important study of topography.’ 1

No action was taken on the Report by the Government. Some of its
recommendations were implemented many years later by the estab-
lishment of the Irish Manuscripts Commission and the Irish Folk-
lore Institute; others, such as those relating to a systematic survey of
the antiquities of the country and the collection and publication of
its folk-music, remain in abeyance. The Senate kept a close watch on
the subject of ancient monuments, however, and when the Shannon
Electricity Bill was before the House in 1925 Senators Brown and
Yeats obtained the insertion of a new section which, in effect, secured
the preservation of any such monument that might be endangered
through the raising of the level of the Shannon by providing for its
safe removal and re-erection elsewhere. It was pursuant to the pro-
visions of this Senate section that the beautiful seventh-century church
on an island in the lower Shannon was removed and re-erected in the
churchyard at Killaloe.

The much-criticized policy of introducing the Irish language, by
methods of compulsion, into the ordinary life of the country also had
its advocates in the Senate. Early in 1923 a Bill to establish a new
police force (in place of the disbanded Royal Irish Constabulary) was
introduced in the Ddil, and the name given to the new force was the
Civic Guard. By an amendment introduced and passed in the Senate,
the title was changed to 'Garda Sioch&na’, which is the Irish, in-
accurately spelled, for ‘Guard of Peace’, and this has been the legal
title ever since. A year later, when the Bill to amalgamate the railways
was passing through the Senate, two amendments dealing with the
same subject were inserted. The first made Irish an obligatory subject
for all examinations for clerkships in the reconstituted Great Southern
Railways Company. The second made it mandatory on the company
1 Senate Debates, iii, !62.

120 RELATIONS OF SENATE AND DAlL

to replace all public notices and signs, including names of stations (all
of which were wholly in English) by notices and signs in Irish and
English, and also to print the railway tickets in both languages. It is
one of the contrasts of Irish life that the strongest supporters of the
noble projects envisaged by the Report of the Senate Committee on
Irish Manuscripts (which was not given effect to) were among the
stoutest opponents of these amendments (which became law imme-
diately). But, whatever one’s private opinion of amendments of this
character, the fact that they were proposed and passed in the Senate
at least goes to prove that the Senate was not reactionary, and
that in such matters as compulsory Irish it was in advance of the
Dfil.

It is necessary in the interests of historical truth to state that the
attitude of the Government and the Ddil towards the Senate was,
from the outset, one of imperfect sympathy. The reasons for this are
not difficult to understand. The country had but lately won its legisla-
tive freedom, after a bitter struggle in which every member of the
Government had been a protagonist and probably a majority of the
other members oftheDail had been active participants. The Senate, on
the other hand, was largely composed of men whose attitude during the
national struggle was supposed, rightly or wrongly, to have been one
of apathy or even of passive hostility. The DSil, moreover, was a
product of universal suffrage and regarded itself as the real repository
of the sovereign rights of the people ; and, in respect of law-making, it
intended to share those rights as little as possible with an ‘unrepre-
sentative’ Second Chamber. Further, the D&il had been in existence,
in one form or another, for four years, and the Senate was regarded
to some extent as an interloper. It was a situation which could be
remedied only by the experience which time brings, and, above all, by
the experience of a change of government.

For these or other reasons, the Senate was never admitted to full
co-partnership in the legislative scheme, in the same sense as, for
example, the Senate of South Africa. Under the Constitution there
was nothing to prevent the appointment of a Senator to ministerial
rank, membership of the D&il being a pre-requisite only in the case
of those Ministers who formed the Executive Council or Cabinet.
But no such appointment was made. Three ‘Extern’ Ministers
were appointed in Mr. Cosgrave’s first Administration (December
1922) and four in his second (September 1923); but they were all
members of the Ddil. Under the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924,
power was given to the Executive Council to appoint Parliamentary

SENATE’S POSITION OF ISOLATION 121

Secretaries to Ministers, up to a maximum of seven. It might have
been expected that at least one such post would be allotted to the
Senate, if only for the purpose of providing a Leader of the House
who could speak officially for the Government. Three Parliamentary
Secretaries were at once appointed, the number being increased later
to five; but they were always members of the Ddil. It should be said
that there were at all times several members of the Senate, holding
the same political opinions as the Government, who were eminently
qualified to hold office.

This absence of any nexus with the Government placed the Senate
in a position of isolation hardly to be found in the case of any other
Second Chamber. It was also the occasion of much administrative
difficulty.- The numerous day-to-day matters dealt with in a normal
Chamber by the Leader of the House had to be settled by the officials,
in consultation with the Government. The Government’s views and
intentions were transmitted to the Chairman, who in turn communi-
cated them to the House. If any question arose out of them, there
was no one in a position to give an authoritative answer.

Under the Constitution, Ministers had the right of audience in the
Senate; though Parliamentary Secretaries had no such right, when
their presence was desirable permission was specially accorded from
the Chair. The two Houses generally sat at the same hour, and it
frequently happened that the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary in
charge of a Bill before the Senate was unable to attend, as his pre-
sence was required in the Ddil. In such cases the debate had to be
postponed or the measure proceeded with in the absence of its
sponsor. It was not until 1930 that something like normality was
reached, by the adoption of a Standing Order which provided that
the debate on the Second Reading of a Bill should be opened by the
Minister or Parliamentary Secretary in charge of it.

The system of parliamentary questions never existed in the Senate.
The desirability of framing Standing Orders for this purpose was dis-
cussed on more than one occasion. 1 It was common ground that
questions dealing with individual interests or grievances ought not to
be allowed; Senators represented no constituencies, and the proper
place for questions of that character was the Dail. But it did seem
desirable that parliamentary questions on matters of broad public
policy, affecting the country as a whole, should be permitted in the
Senate. However, the fact that there was no power to compel the
attendance of Ministers for the purpose of answering such questions
1 Senate Debates, i, 502, 507; ii, 210-14.

122 RELATIONS OF SENATE AND DAlL

proved to be an insuperable barrier. Ministers showed no desire to
. co-operate, and the matter had to be dropped.

Another grievance of the Senate was the manner in which large
blocks of Bills were sent to it periodically, especially before the
Christmas and summer recesses, and required by the Government to
be passed at short notice, on grounds of administrative urgency. This
may have been excusable in the very early period, when the Govern-
ment was engaged in meeting the armed challenge to the State; but
the habit persisted after all reason for it had disappeared. Lord
Glenavy made frequent protests in the name of the House, but they
somehow lacked sincerity, and one felt that the sausage-machine
method of enacting legislation did not greatly disturb his serenity.
Before the summer recess of 1924 he blandly informed the Senate
that ‘there are nineteen Bills for our consideration when we meet
to-morrow. Twelve months ago it would have occurred to me that
that would mean two days’ protracted sitting of the Senate. But see-
ing that we have despatched fifteen Bills to-day in the space of an
hour I see no limit to the speed and the powers of this House. There-
fore I think we will be quite able to dispose of these nineteen Bills
to-morrow.’ 1 One obvious remedy was for the Government to initiate
in the Senate a number of their complex but largely uncontroversial
Bills; the expert criticism which they would have received there
would have put them into something like their final shape ; the Senate
would have been kept continuously busy, and the pressure on the
D&il would have been correspondingly relieved. This course was
urged upon the Government, and on one occasion Mr. Cosgrave
informed the Senate that it was intended to adopt it. 2 But because
the anti-Senate bias proved too strong, or for some other reason not
disclosed, it was never in fact adopted. Eventually, the Senate took
matters into its own hands by refusing to hurry legislation, and the
Standing Orders were amended so as to provide that there should be
an interval of three days between the receipt of a Bill (other than a
Money Bill) from the Ddil and its appearance on the Order Paper,
and also so as to prevent more than one stage of a Bill being taken
on the same day.

Other instances might be given of what might be called the Ddil’s
policy of non-co-operation, but one example will suffice. In May 1924
a motion was proposed in the Senate by Senator Douglas to the
effect that a Joint Standing Committee should be set up, consisting
of five members from each House, to consider the position of the
1 Senate Debates , in, 894. a Ibiji., ijj, 139.

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY 123

Irish Free State in relation to foreign affairs. He expounded this pro-
posal in a well-informed speech, and the motion was cordially sup-
ported in all quarters of the House, only one member speaking
against it-. 1 There can be no doubt that the proposal was an admir-
able one, and a Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs would
have had great educative value. A message was duly sent to the Dail,
embodying the resolution and requesting concurrence. The message
was not considered, and the Senate never even received the courtesy
of a reply.

Leaving aside these general considerations which have so far occu-
pied our attention, we shall now review the legislative work done, and
the Senate’s part in that work, from the beginning until the dissolu-
tion of August 1923. Article 81 of the Constitution provided that the
Ddil elected as a Constituent Assembly on the 16th June 1922 might,
for a period not exceeding one year from the date of the coming into
operation of the Constitution (6th December 1922), exercise all the
powers conferred on the Driil by the Constitution : and that the first
election for the Dail under the Constitution should take place as
soon as possible after (sic) the expiration of such period. These
provisions necessitated a general election within a comparatively
short time. Actually, it took place in the early autumn of 1 923, before
the year had expired.

The period was one of very great legislative activity. In eight
months no less than forty-seven Acts were passed, covering almost
eveiy aspect of the national life. In the sphere of public order and
administration temporary Acts were passed establishing an army, a
police force, and a paid magistracy called District Justices, and regu-
lating the Civil Service. The system of local government was recast
by another temporary Act, and the Unemployment Insurance and
National Health Insurance codes were amended. An Electoral Act
and a Prevention of Electoral Abuses Act were also passed, and the
ruined buildings and the state of general lawlessness which were the
sequelae of the revolutionary period were dealt with in a Damage to
Property (Compensation) Act and an Enforcement of Law (Occa-
sional Powers) Act. Most of these benefited— some very considerably
—by the critical attention which they received in the Senate and by
the amendments inserted in them as a consequence.

All the temporary Acts were replaced in the following year by
permanent measures, with one very important exception — the De-
fence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923. This Act, which
* Senate Debates, iii, 29-44.

124 RELATIONS OF SENATE AND DAlL

contains no less than 246 sections and eight Schedules, and is the
basis in law of the Army, was introduced avowedly to make purely
temporary provision for the armed forces of the State. That being
the case, very few amendments were offered in the D&il. When the
Bill came before the Senate, the Minister for Defence (General
Mulcahy) assured the House— of course, in perfect good faith— that
it was intended to bring in a permanent measure in the course of six
months or so. The Senate accordingly agreed to take all the successive
stages of the Bill at once, without attempting to scrutinize it in any
detail or to amend it; though the occasion did not pass without a
wise and statesmanlike warning from Senator Jameson (which proved
afterwards to have been sadly needed) on the subject of Army accoun-
tancy and finance. 1 But though more than sixteen years have elapsed
since then, and the State has experienced two administrations, this
‘temporary* Act is still the law governing the Army, being renewed
annually.

One of the most valuable services rendered by the Senate during
this period was in connection with the Land Bill, 1923, the main object
of which was the completion of land purchase, that is to say, to
enable Irish agricultural tenants to become the owners of their hold-
ings. This measure was conceived and carried through by the late
Mr. Patrick Hogan, one of the most brilliant and realistic of Mr.
Cosgrave’s Ministers, whose untimely deathin 1936, as the result of a
motor-car accident, was an irreparable loss to Irish political life. The
Bill reached the Senate towards the end of the session, when only six
consecutive days remained for its discussion. But the House sat on
five of those days and devoted more than twenty-four hours of parlia-
mentary time to the Bill. Two questions arose : what would be the
attitude of the ex-Unionist, landlord class in the Senate towards the
proposals of a native government in regard to the land question,
which had been a secular subject of controversy in Ireland; and to
what extent was the Senate as a whole capable, even in so short a time,
of improving a Bill which had been in the possession of the Ddil for
six weeks and had been subjected to a most careful scrutiny in that
House? The manner in which these questions were answered could
give nothing but encouragement to those whose hopes were set upon a
new era of co-operation, in which the Second Chamber would exer-
cise a distinctive function of the highest utility. Senator Sir John
Keane was the protagonist of the landlords, but his numerous amend-
ments received scant support from other ex-Unionists, who were
1 Senate Debates , i, 1993, 1994.

MR. HOGAN’S TRIBUTE TO SENATE 125

generally found ranged against him in the division lobby. The value
of the Senate’s work on the Bill, in which it inserted no less than
twenty-seven amendments, evoked a generous tribute from Mr.
Hogan.

‘I have no intention of wearying the Senate by answering the
various points raised for the fifth time by Sir John Keane and an-
swered for the seventh or eighth. I am extremely sorry that the Bill
should have to be discussed in the Senate under such unfavourable
circumstances, that it should be rushed in this fashion and that the
Senate should not have had an opportunity of discussing it at more
leisure. I want to say that I realize that the Bill leaves the Senate
really improved, especially in a very important section— section 24 —
and really improved in regard to the points which Senator Jameson
and Senator Guinness raised at an earlier stage. I think the Senate
realized that the Bill did need improvement in that direction. I think
it is a big improvement. I have only to thank the Senate for the in-
variable consideration they have shown to me during the discussions.’ 1

A point of some constitutional interest arose in connection with
the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1923, which did not come before the
Senate until the day before the conclusion of the session. It was in-
tended to be a temporary measure, and its purpose was to extend the
hours within which alcoholic drink might not be sold. The Minister
in charge of the Bill (Kevin O’Higgins) pressed the Senate to pass it,
but the Bill was not a popular one and, there being obviously no
urgency about it, the House refused. Instead, a resolution was carried
postponing further consideration of the Bill ‘until the re-assembly of
the Oireachtas’. Senators took this step in the full assurance that a
dissolution of the Oireachtas would have the effect of killing the
Bill/and when the House re-assembled after the general election it
was not restored to the Order Paper.

The Government were at that time also of the same opinion, and
on the 30th May 1924 they introduced into the Ddil a new Intoxicat-
ing Liquor Bill, which included the provisions of the Bill believed to
be dead. But, later, the Attorney-General advised that the Bill passed
by the Dail in 1923 was caught by the provisions of Article 38 of the
Constitution, which stated that a Bill passed by the Dail and con-
sidered by the Senate shall, not later than two hundred and seventy
days after it shall have been first sent to the Senate, be deemed to be
passed by both Houses. This suspensory' period had expired on the
29th ‘April 1924, and. in accordance with the Attorney-General's
1 Senate Debates, i. 2175, 2176.

126 RELATIONS OF SENATE AND DAlL

view, it was the duty of the Executive Council, under Article 41 of
the Constitution, to send the Bill to the Governor-General for the
signification of the Royal Assent. 1 The Bill was accordingly signed
by the Governor-General on the 23rd July 1924. The Government
did not then require it, and the whole Act was repealed by an amend-
ment introduced into the second Bill, which became law later in the
same year. The affair had disclosed an undoubted flaw in the Article
of the Constitution which dealt with the suspensory power of the
Senate: and when this Article was amended in 1928 machinery was
devised which provided that, after the suspensory period had
elapsed, a positive resolution of the Dd.il was required before formal
enactment.

During the period of armed rebellion against the State, very large
numbers of persons had been interned under the inherent powers
possessed by the military, re-inforced by the Army Emergency
Powers Resolution passed by the D&il on the 28th September 1922.
Mr. De Valera’s ‘Cease Fire Order’ of the 27th April 1923 created a
new situation, however. A short time later a writ of habeas corpus was
applied for, this ‘Cease Fire Order’ being impleaded. The application
was refused by the Master of the Rolls on the 15th June, on the
ground that ‘the Irish Republican Army Proclamation did not state
that a state of war had ceased to exist. It meant nothing more than
that a rest stage had been reached.’ Similar applications were refused
on the 18th and 21st June; but it was becoming clear that the time
was approaching when the courts would hold that a state of war had
ceased to exist and a writ of habeas corpus would be granted. This
would be tantamount to a judicial declaration that all the internees
were thereafter illegally detained. They would all, therefore, have had
to be released ; and, as their arms had not been surrendered but only
dumped, their release involved a risk which society could not afford
to take. Moreover, action could no longer be taken against the
Irregulars who were still at liberty, since the army’s powers of arrest
and detention would be at an end. In these circumstances, the
Government introduced in the D&il on the 15th June 1923 (the day
of the decision of the Master of the Rolls) the Public Safety (Emer-
gency Powers) Bill. This Bill was duly passed by the D&il and sent
to the Senate on the 23rd July.

It is proposed here to examine in some detail the amendments
inserted by the Senate in the Bill (often against the wishes of the
Government), since they well exemplify the general attitude of the
1 Dail Debates, viii, 1109-11.

SENATE AND PUBLIC SAFETY BILLS 127

Second Chamber towards measures of this type. Tin's attitude was the
same in all cases : to accord to the Government the powers deemed
necessary by them in the grave situation with which they were con-
fronted, but at the same time to examine the proposed legislation in
a critical spirit, with a view to ensuring that the ordinary’ processes
of law should be followed so far as possible, that the civic rights even
of persons in arms against the Government should be safeguarded,
and that nothing should be done to retard an ultimate appeasement.

The Bill provided for the continued internment of the Irregulars
who had been taken prisoner, and for the arrest and detention of any
person in respect of whom a report had been received from the Civic
Guard or the military authorities that he was suspected of certain
scheduled offences or that the public safety was endangered by his
being allowed to remain at liberty. Senator Douglas moved to delete
the reference to a report from the Civic Guard or the military’ authori-
ties, and to substitute for it the written certificate of the Minister.

* ‘What I want to avoid if possible,’ he said, ‘is bringing in these
new Forces, particularly the Civic Guard, and mixing them up with
this Bill in the eyes of the public. I should like it to be made quite
clear that, if an officer of the Civic Guard arrests a man, he brings
him forward in the ordinary Courts for trial. But if, in the meantime,
under the Bill, the Minister interferes and interns him, the public can-
not blame the Civic Guard officer. This . . . amendment . . . would
have the effect ... of placing the full responsibility on the Minister.’

Senator W. B. Yeats concurred : ‘The principle is that the Minister
can be changed if he does an unpopular act. He can go away, taking
the bitterness he has raised with him. But the Civjc Guard cannot be
changed.’

The amendment was supported by Senators Jameson and O’Farrcll
and was carried, in spite of the opposition of the Minister (Kevin
O'Higgins). 1

The Bill made provision for the establishment of Appeal Councils,
to investigate, at the request of individual internees, the question of
their continued detention, and it specified that one member of each
such council should be certified by the Attorney-General to have
legal knowledge or experience. The Senate did not deem this safe-
guard sufficient, and it inserted an amendment to the effect that the
legal member should be a practising barrister or solicitor of not less
than five years’ standing. Further, if an appeal council reported that
there were no reasonable grounds for suspicion against an internee.

1 Senate Debates, i, 1576-SI.

128 RELATIONS OF SENATE AND DAlL

the Senate made it mandatory on the Government either to refer
back the case to the council, or to put the internee on his trial before
a regular court in the ordinary way, or to release him within one
month of the receipt of the report. 1

The well-being of the internees was the especial interest of Senator
Sir Hutcheson Poe, in spite of the fact that the Irregulars had spared
neither his age nor his physical disability. He pressed upon the
Government an amendment providing for the inspection of the in-
ternment camps and the visitation of the prisoners by persons of
recognized status and independent position. He spoke of the natural
concern of the relatives and friends of ‘these unfortunate people’,
and concluded: ‘Liberty is ... a subject which is de'arest to men’s
hearts, and I hope that some means may be found ... of releasing a
considerable number of these men and women . . . before very long,
and that in any case, long before 'the expiry of this Bill, the whole of
these persons may be restored to their homes. In the meantime, I
think that, if the Minister can see his way to obtain the services of
three men or women who will fulfil the condition laid down, their
very presence and their association with the Government in the ad-
ministration of the prison camps and so on will inspire confidence
and allay any anxiety that may still be felt on behalf of the internees.’
The principle was supported from the Labour benches and by
Senator W. B. Yeats and others, and an amendment embodying it
was incorporated in the Bill. 2

A number of offences, greatly varying in their degrees of gravity,
were grouped together in the schedule to the measure, e.g. arson,
robbery under arms, wrongful entry on land, and illicit distillation;
and all judicial discretion was taken away by the provision that any
person found guilty of any of these offences shall be sentenced to
three years’ penal servitude. This flat-rate, mandatory system was
thoroughly bad in principle, and Senator Douglas sought to delete
it from the Bill by means of an amendment altering ‘shall’ to ‘may’.
Speaking on this amendment, Senator Mrs. Stopford Green attacked
the principle in one of the most striking speeches ever delivered in the
Senate.

‘ The mandatory system in fact appoints that it is with the Minister,
not with the Judge, that lies the punishment of crime. I urge that,
so far as the nation consents to weaken the responsibility of Judges

and Magistrates, it lowers their virtue We can thus, in this critical

moment, lower the non-political authority of law, and fashion it into
1 Senate Debates, i, 1623-32. 2 ibid., i, 1633-42, 1723, 1724.

CIVIL WAR NOT \o BE RENEWED 129

a tool of this State, degrade its dignity, and once more make it the
object of popular distrust, and even presently of contempt.’ The
Minister (Kevin O’Higgins) had urged that the responsibility in these
critical decisions rested with the Government. But the ultimate
authority of Parliament vis a vis the Executive can seldom have been
stated with greater cogency than by Alice Stopford Green: ‘Our
responsibility is as great as that of the Minister. Where he secs danger
ahead if we do not accept his mandate, we have on our part rightly to
measure his demands and balance them against other dangers, deeper
and more persistent, which might follow any lack in us of foresight
and responsibility.’ Senator Douglas's amendment was carried, the
mandatory principle being thus excised from the Bill by the alteration
of ‘shall’ to ‘may’, and the flat-rate sentence of three years giving
place to a variable term not exceeding five years. 1

The Bill, with all the Senate’s amendments, thirteen in number, was
passed into law on the 1st August 1923. It was only just in time. From
documents captured from the Irregulars it had looked as though the
period of quiescence was still, as the Master of the Rolls had called
it, merely a rest stage. For instance, in a letter dated the 27th June,
written by Mr. Frank Aiken, the Irregular ‘Chief of Staff’, to
another leader who was in prison, the writer had stated that ‘with
regard to the future, I believe the rifle and revolver is [.wV] out of
date as an offensive weapon. . . . The use of explosives, gas and
fire may be concentrated on, also small trench mortars. ... If we
have to fight another war with the Staters, it will have to be short
and sweet.’ 2 But a month later Mr. De Valera stated in an interview
with the Associated Press that ‘it is not the intention of the Republi-
can Government or the Army Executive to renew the war in the
autumn or after the elections. The war, so far as we arc concerned, is
finished,’ 3 A further application was made for a writ of habeas corpus,
in this case on behalf of an internee named Mrs. Connolly O’Brien.
The Court of Appeal held that the state of war had come to an end,
and, on the 31st July 1923, granted the application and ordered the
release of the prisoner. 4

This decision meant, of course, that the further detention of all
the internees was illegal. The State claimed the right to make a return
to the writ of habeas corpus, and in the return, made on the 2nd
August, it relied on an Order detaining Mrs. Connolfy O'Brien made

1 Senate Debates , i, 1660-70.

2 Quoted by Mr. O'Hipcins in the Senate: Debates, i, 15?-, 1555.

3 Irish Times, 23 July 1923.

4 Rex {O’Brien) v. the Minister for Defence, [192-i] 1 I.R. 32.

130 RELATIONS OF SENATE AND DAlL

under the provisions of the Public Safety Act, passed on the previous
day. An extraordinary constitutional point then arose, which it is
necessary to refer to here, on account of its connection with the his-
tory of Parliament. It was submitted on behalf of Mrs. Connolly
O’Brien that the State’s return to the writ was bad, and for this
reason. Article 47 of the Constitution provided that, not later than
seven days after a Bill had been passed by both Houses, two-fifths of
the members of the D&il or a majority of members of the Senate might
demand the suspension of the Bill for ninety days, during which
period a referendum might be demanded. This provision was not to
apply to Money Bills, or to such other Bills as might be declared by
both Houses to be necessary for the immediate preservation of the
public peace, health, or safety. There had been no such declaration
in the case of the Public Safety (Emergency Powers) Bill, and it was
contended that the Act was ultra vires the Constitution, inasmuch as
it had received the Royal Assent on the day on which it had been
actually passed, instead of after a due interval of seven days during
which its suspension might have been demanded under Article 47.
The Court of Appeal upheld this contention, and decided that the
State’s return to the writ of habeas corpus was bad.

The Government’s method of dealing with this constitutional diffi-
culty was ingenious and effective. On the day following this decision
(3rd August 1923) a fresh Bill was passed by both Houses, entitled
the Public Safety (Emergency Powers) (No. 2) Bill. The abortive Act
was scheduled to it in its entirety, and Section 1 of the Bill provided
that the schedule should have the force of law. Section 2 declared that
it was necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace
and safety; and, to make assurance double sure, separate declara-
tions in the same sense were passed by both Houses. The Bill was
signed by the Governor-General the same day, and it became law
immediately, all constitutional requirements having been complied
with.

Being thus made aware of the implications of Article 47, the
Government sought and obtained similar declarations from both
Houses in the case of the Defence Forces Act, the Indemnity Act
(which indemnified the armed forces in respect of acts done during
the continuance of the state of war), and the Land Act. That such
declarations were desirable in the case of the first two is obvious ; but
that this course was expedient in the case of the Land Act requires
some explanation. It was, in fact, equally necessary. Agrarian trouble
was prevalent over a large part of the country, trespass and outrage

MR. DE VALERA ON TITLES TO LAND 131

were frequent, and in the County Waterford a land war had been in
progress for months. Mr. Hogan’s Land Act went to the root of the
matter, and if the rule of law was to prevail it was essential that there
should be no delay or possible hitch in its operation.

Shortly before the Hogan Act was passed, Mr. Dc Valera, who was
then in hiding, sent a message to be read at a meeting of his party-
held in the Dublin Mansion House on the 17th July. In this he said
that the principle they meant to stand upon was that of Fintan Lalor,
his faith and theirs : ‘That the entire ownership of Ireland, moral and
material, up to the sun and down to the centre, is vested of right in
the people of Ireland ; that they, and none but they, arc the land-
owners and law-makers of this island ; that all laws arc null and void
not made by them, and all titles to land invalid not conferred or con-
firmed by them, and that this full right of ownership may and ought
to be asserted by any and all means which God has put in the power
of man.’ 1 The habit of quoting the utterances of Irish patriots of
former days, without regard to circumstance and the passage of
time, is a common one, and greatly to be deprecated. Fintan Lalor
wrote these flaming words in the forties of the last century, imme-
diately after the Great Famine, when the whole of Ireland groaned
under a tyranny of landlordism which had few parallels in Europe.
From 1870 to 1909 six Land Acts had been passed, whereby
400,000 holdings had become the property of the tenants; a
rental of £7,000,000 had been purchased by the State, and about
130,000,000 pounds’ worth of Land Stock had been issued to
the vendors in payment. It was the purpose of Mr. Hogan’s Act to
complete this vast revolution. But the Oireachtas, like the British
Parliament, was not, in Mr. Dc Valera's view, a body entitled to
confer or to confirm titles to Irish land ; and so, by reasserting Fintan
Lalor’s words as a principle on which he and his friends intended to
stand, Mr. Dc Valera told the land-hungry Irish labourer, in effect,
that all titles to land derived under these Acts were invalid, and that
the full right of ownership ‘ ought to be asserted by any and all means
which God has put in the power of man’. In these circumstances, the
need becomes apparent for declarations under Article 47 of the
Constitution in respect of the Land Act, and also in respect of the
Public Safety Act, which imposed severe penalties for trespass.

The Oireachtas was dissolved on the 9th August 1923. On the
afternoon of that day, prior to the dissolution, Mr. Cosgravc attended
the Senate and, as head of the Government, expressed the very deep
1 Irish Independent, IS July 1923.

132 RELATIONS OF SENATE AND DAlL

appreciation of himself and his colleagues for the co-operation and
assistance of the Second Chamber, and for the useful and construc-
tive criticism given by it to the legislative proposals of the Ministry.
He also paid a tribute to ‘the extraordinary courage and perseverance
of the Senators who were marked out for special attention during the
past six or eight months, and to the fine exhibition of citizenship
shown by them during that period.’ 1

Mr. De Valera and his friends contested the general election under
the name of the Sinn F6in Party. Sinn F6in had been the name of
Arthur Griffith’s movement, which was, of course, one of national
regeneration, and had nothing to do with physical force. In an appeal
to the electors, it was stated that ‘ Sinn Fdin will abolish the murder
gangs and secure the life, liberty and property of the people. Sinn
Fdin will take immediate steps to end unemployment by undertaking
remunerative works of reconstruction.’ 2 But these strange promises
from men who, a few months earlier, had been engaged in an attempt
to wreck the economic and social life of the nation could hardly be
taken seriously. This appeal, which was published in the Dublin news-
papers, was accompanied by a manifesto signed by Mr. De Valera,
which showed that the issue was again to be Free State versus
Republic: ‘Shall it be said that this generation has turned renegade
to the national faith and outdone the disastrous submission of the
princes and prelates to Henry II, which brought us centuries of shame
and sorrow?’ 3 The reference to the prelates of 1172 is noteworthy, in
view of Mr. De Valera’s disagreement with their successors seven and
a half centuries later.

Mr. De Valera sto.od as a candidate for County Clare, and was
elected by an enormous majority, in spite of, or perhaps because of,
the fact that he was arrested on his appearance in the constituency
(15th August 1923). His supporters do not seem to have seen any-
thing illogical or peculiar in the president of a republic, who had
rejected the will of the people as a criterion, offering himself as an
ordinary candidate for election to a parliament which he did not
recognize.

The election was held on the 27th August 1923, and the result was
as follows :

1 Senate Debates , i, 2207-8.

2 Irish Independent, 24 August 1923.

3 Ibid., 25 August 1923.

RESULT OF THE GENERAL ELECTION 1 33

Party

Candidates

Members

nominated

elected

Cumann na nGaedheal (Cosgravc)

109

Sinn Fdin (De Valera)

Labour

Farmers

Independents

Independent Labour

377

153

The people had declared for the Treaty again.

CHAPTER VII

BUILDING THE NEW STATE

The new Parliament — Composition of the Administration — Three
main classes of legislation — Laying the foundations — The Ministers and
Secretaries Act and other measures — Erection of a stable polity — Laws
for the improvement of agriculture, fisheries, and housing — Defence of
the State and of society — The Republican Government and Army —
Repudiation of the National Loan — Statistics of lawlessness — The
Cove outrage — Remedial measures and their success — Statesmanship
of Kevin O' Higgins — The Government's internal troubles — Ministerial
changes — The stillborn National Party — Restoration of stable condi-
tions.

The new Parliament assembled on the I9th September 1923. None
of the forty-four members of Mr. De Valera’s Sinn F6in Party took
their seats, and so the Cosgrave party, with sixty-three members out
of 109, had a clear majority in the Dail. All the other Deputies were,
of course, pro-Treaty, and the Opposition was provided by the Labour
Party of fourteen members, led with very great ability by Mr. Thomas
Johnson.

The Administration was composed as follows :

Members of the Executive Council

President : W. T. Cosgrave.

Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs : Kevin O’Higgins.

Minister for Finance : Ernest Blythe.

Minister for Industry and Commerce: Joseph McGrath.'

Minister for Education: John MacNeill.

Minister for External Affairs : Desmond Fitzgerald.

Minister for Defence : General Richard Mulcahy.

134

THREE CLASSES OF LEGISLATION 135

Ministers not Members of the Executive Council

Minister for Agriculture: Patrick Hogan.

Minister for Local Government : James A. Burke.

Postmaster-General : James J. Walsh.

Minister for Fisheries: Finian Lynch.

The period was one of reconstruction and nation-building on the
one hand, and of revolutionary aftermath on the other. The legisla-
tion may accordingly be divided broadly into three main classes : first,
the laying of the foundations ; second, the erection upon those founda-
tions of a stable polity and a national well-being; third, the restora-
tion of the rule of law, and the safeguarding of that polity and that
well-being from destruction at the hands of those who still refused
to accept the verdict of the people or to seek to alter that verdict by
methods other than those of violence. The Senate’s contribution to
this legislation will be examined in the chapter which follows.

As to the first class, at the apex of the political pyramid the func-
tions of the several Departments had hitherto been largely a matter
of unwritten convention. By the Ministers and Secretaries Act. 1924,
all politico-administrative functions were crystallized in eleven sepa-
rate Departments of State, with a Minister as the responsible head of
each, viz. President, Finance, Justice, Local Government and Public
Health, Education, Lands and Agriculture, Industry and Commerce,
Fisheries, Posts and Telegraphs, Defence, and External Affairs. For
the service of these Departments there was enacted the Civil Service
Regulation Act, 1924, replacing the temporary Act passed in the
previous year. The Garda Siochana Act, 1924, established an un-
armed civic guard or police force, to sene the needs of the whole
country, also replacing a temporary Act of 1923. And the whole
judicial system of the country was recast by the Courts of Justice Act,
1924, the provisions of which will be considered more particularly
later.

In the second class, comprehensive measures introduced by Mr.
Hogan, the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, gradually raided the
standard of Irish agricultural exports— the economic mainstay of the
country — to heights which they had never reached before. By the
Agricultural Produce (Eggs) Act, 1924. the marketing of ergs was
subjected to strict regulation, and penalties were inflicted for the sale
of dirty or unfit eges. By the Dairy Produce Act, 1924, a similar stan-
dard was set for the marketing of butter: and under the Lise Stock

136 BUILDING THE NEW STATE

Breeding Act, 1925, all bulls had to be licensed, with a view to the
elimination of the unfit and the improvement of the breed and quality
of cattle. This type of legislation gradually restored Irish products to
their rightful place in the British market, and so improved the status
of the farmers, many of whom also benefited by the Arterial Drainage
Act, 1925, whereby provision was made to cope with the many
thousands of acres of lands subject to flooding. Moreover, by the
Beet Sugar (Subsidy) Act, 1925, under which a factory for the manu- .
facture of sugar from beet was established in Carlow, the farmers were
given a new crop and Ireland a new industry. The inland fisheries were
another valuable asset, but control had broken down during the
revolutionary period, to the great detriment of the tourist industry.
Under the Fisheries Act, 1925, new Boards of Conservators were
organized and provided with adequate funds, and licensed retailers
were required to keep registers of all purchases of salmon and trout,,
by which means the disposal of poached fish was rendered extremely
difficult.

A like energy was displayed in other fields. An attack was made on
the slum problem by the Housing (Building Facilities) Act, 1924,
whereby grants of £250,000 were made available for the erection of
small houses and £50,000 for reconstructed houses, followed up by
the Housing Act, 1925, whereby the Minister for Local Government
was empowered to make grants up to £300,000 for the same purposes.
The Local Government Act, 1925, amended the whole law relating
to this subject. The railway system, which had been on the down
grade ever since the Great War, was reorganized by the Railways
Act, 1924, which amalgamated the four companies operating wholly
within the area of the Irish Free State and established a railway
tribunal to regulate charges. The drink evil was tackled by -the
Intoxicating Liquor (General) Act, .1924, which severely restricted
the hours of sale of alcoholic drink and virtually prohibited its sale
altogether on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Saint Patrick’s Day.
Most courageous of all, Mr. Patrick McGilligan (who had succeeded
Mr. McGrath as Minister for Industry) made a beginning, in the
Shannon Electricity Act, 1925, with a gigantic project of making a
supply of electric light, heat, and power available throughout the
country by harnessing the waters of the River Shannon.

Constructive work of this kind may not be spectacular, but it is
directed to making the nation prosperous and happy; and the
daily grappling with complex problems which it entailed enabled the
statesmen engaged in it to integrate their personalities, unlike those

O’HIGGINS ON REPUBLICAN CLAIMS 137

who held aloof on the issue of the Republic, destroyed much and
learnt nothing.

This brings us to the third class of legislation during this period,
namely, the measures necessary for the defence of the State and of
society. But, before considering these measures, we must first review
the conditions with which they were designed to cope. There existed
at this time the Government of the Irish Republic, with the Irish
Republican Army allegedly responsible to it. This Government
claimed jurisdiction over the whole of Ireland, but it had no de jure
authority from God or man, and no de facto authority except where
the writ of the gunman still ran. Logically, it might have been ex-
pected that, as Mr. De Valera and his friends had contested the
general election, they would have been content to abide by the result;
but such was not the case. The position was one which no govern-
ment could tolerate. As Mr. O'Higgins said : ‘We will not have two
Governments in this country, and we will not have two armies in this
country'. If people have a creed to preach, a message to expound, they
can go before their fellow-citizens and preach and expound it. But let
the appeal be to the mind, to reason rather than to physical fear.
They cannot have it both ways. They cannot have the platform and
the bomb.’ 1 Letters were addressed to private individuals from per-
sons styling themselves ‘Minister for Agriculture’ and so on which
were in fact from Ministers of this pretended Government. 2 In
December 1923 the Government issued a loan for ten millions ster-
ling, for purposes of reconstruction, and a special appeal was made
to the small investor. In the absence in prison of the ‘President of the
Republic’ (Mr. Dc Valera), a statement w r as issued by the ‘Vice-
President’ (Mr. Patrick Ruttlcdge) with the object of wrecking the
loan.

‘The Free State Executive are engaged in attempting to raise a
loan in portions of this country. This loan is of the utmost impor-
tance to them because of the use they intend to make of its success.
The Government has already issued a proclamation refusing to accept
any responsibility for this or any other liability contracted by such a
body. In view of the attempts being made to stampede the small in-
vestors, particularly, to participate in this loan, all members of Sinn
Feirt should endeavour to save such people from sinking their savings
in such an unauthorised flotation and thereby incurring subsequent
loss.’ 3

1 Dai! Debates, v, 1944. 2 Ibid., x, 280.

3 Quoted by Mr. O’Higgins in Dail Debates, v, 1944, 1945.

138 BUILDING THE NEW STATE

The threat was unsuccessful. The loan was quickly over-subscribed,
and the support given to it by the small investor is sufficiently indi-
cated by the fact that the average subscription was only slightly over
£500. 1

One of the results of these pretended claims to governmental
authority, and of the fact that the arms of the Irregulars had not been
surrendered but only dumped, was a reign of lawlessness in many
parts of the country. 2 For the month of January 1924 there were 545
indictable offences reported to the Civic Guard. 3 During the period
August 1923 to February 1924 there were no fewer than 738 cases of
arson and robbery under arms. Though this is a terrifying total, the
Government were gradually getting the upper hand, for the number
of such cases during the comparable period of 1922-3 was 1,502. 4
But as late as the 21st February 1924 Mr. O’Higgins informed the
Dail that, in some counties, there were certain persons elected to the
Dail ‘but who have not, so far, taken advantage of the honour, lead-
ing armed gangs of robbers’. 6 On the 21st March 1924 there occurred
perhaps the most horrible outrage of all. A number of unarmed
British soldiers, who were proceeding on shore leave from the garri-
son at Spike Island, arrived at the landing-stage at Cove (Queens-
town), County Cork, accompanied by some civilian friends. These
soldiers were there by virtue of the Treaty of 1921, which placed the
harbour defences of Queenstown under British care and maintenance
parties. Immediately these defenceless people disembarked from
their launch, fire was opened upon them from two machine-guns con-
cealed in a powerful touring car, which, occupied by four men, had
pulled up near the landing-stage a few minutes prior to the arrival of
the launch. One soldier was mortally wounded, an officer and seven-
teen soldiers were wounded, some dangerously, and five civilians,
including two women, were among the casualties. The miscreants
then drove away rapidly towards Cork. When the Ddil met four
days later it adjourned at once, in Mr. Cosgrave’s words, ‘as an
expression of the sympathy of the Irish Nation in this wanton and
murderous outrage and as an evidence to the British Nation and to

the civilized world of the regret and humiliation which <ve feel that
such a crime should be committed in our country.’ 8 A similar resolu-
tion was passed by the Senate. 7 Though a reward of £10,000 was
offered by the Government for the apprehension of the assassins, and

1 Ddil Debates, v, 1619, 1620.

2 Ibid., v, 1942. 3 ibid., v5 1216 .

6 Ibid., vi, 1257, 1258.

7 Senate Debates , ii, 1257-60.

4 Ibid., vi, 1172.

0 Ibid., vi, 2291-4.

OUTSTANDING DECREES 139

their detection engaged the personal attention of the highest officers
of the State, the attempt to bring them to justice was unsuccessful.

Another of the results of the prevailing unrest was the threatened
collapse of legal process for the recovery of debt. Tin's is, of course,
the vindication of the legal right of the individual citizen against his
neighbour; and this right must be upheld if commerce is to thrive
and the springs of credit arc to be prevented from drying up — a condi-
tion of things which would ultimately fall more heavily on the poor
than on anyone else. For reasons of history, the bailiff had not been
a popular figure in Ireland, and the recognition that a native govern-
ment and native courts brought changed conditions was slow in
coming. But, as Kevin O’Higgins said, ‘the ceasing of the bailiff to
function is the first sign of a crumbling civilization’. 1 The courts were
not recognized as legal courts by Mr. De Valera’s followers, and in-
timidation was rife. Moreover, there arc always, in any community,
numbers of persons only too ready to take advantage of such a situa-
tion as this by refusing to pay their lawful debts. The figures of the
period speak for themselves. On the 11th March 1924 there were
roughly 7,000 decrees outstanding, representing approximately
£170,000. Of these decrees, some 2,000, representing £17,000, were
for public debts, and 5,100, representing £150,000, were for private
debts. 1 On the 31st July 1924 the number of unexecuted judgements
was 7,063, representing a sum of £126,538; and on the 31st March
1925 the number was 5.712, representing £107,790. 3 The threat to
the social fabric represented by such figures as these, though not so
obtrusive, was none the less real than the revolver, the petrol can,
the bomb, and the mine.

From the foregoing summary we can now see the directions in
which legislative action was called for in the interests of the public
safety during the period covered by this chapter. At the beginning of
the period hundreds of men who had been captured during the
Irregular campaign were still in custody. The Government’s policy
was one of release as quickly as considerations of public safety ad-
mitted, 4 but obviously that course could not be adopted while the
events were taking place which have just been recounted ; and on the
2nd April 1924 the total number of political prisoners was 941, of
whom 314 had been sentenced and the rest were interned. 5 The
provisions as to internment contained in the temporary Public
Safety Act which had been passed before the general election were

= Ibid., vi, 1926, 1927. 3 Ibid., xi, 418.

6 Ibid., vi, 2736.

1 Dai! Debate s, vi, 192S.
4 Ibid., v, 1943.

140 BUILDING THE NEW STATE

accordingly re-enacted in the Public Safety (Powers of Arrest and
Detention) Temporary Act, 1924, which had a duration of one year.
This, of course, entailed the suspension of habeas corpus , but Kevin
O’Higgins hesitated as little about it as did Abraham Lincoln in
similar circumstances in Maryland in 1861. By the time the Act ex-
pired, on the 31st January 1925, the Government’s policy of firmness
mingled with clemency had so far succeeded that there was no need
to renew it. On the 21st May 1924 there were only 616 political
prisoners, of whom 302 were sentenced and 314 were internees. 1 By
the 1st July the numbers had fallen to eighty-six sentenced prisoners
and 123 internees. 2 Mr. De Valera was released on the 16th July, and
most of the others were set free before Christmas.

The menace from arson, robbery under arms, and similar crimes
was met by the re-enactment, in a separate but temporary Act, of
those sections of the temporary Act of 1923 which had prescribed the
punishment (including flogging) for such offences. This new Act ex-
pired on the 20th April 1925, and by that time the threat to society
had been successfully resisted and the circumstances did not call for
its renewal.

A third set of provisions contained in the temporary Act of 1923,
namely, those relating to the possession, sale, and licensing of fire-
arms and the control of lethal weapons generally, were in substance
continued until the 31st July 1925 by the Firearms (Temporary Pro-
visions) Act, 1924 and the Firearms (Temporary Provisions) (Con-
tinuance) Act, 1925.

The obstruction of legal remedies for debt was countered by the
Enforcement of Law (Occasional Powers) Act, 1924, which substan-
tially re-enacted the provisions of a similar Act of 1923 and which
was itself extended by a Continuance Act of 1925 until the 31st
March 1926. These Acts greatly strengthened the powers of the
sheriffs. There was naturally a time-lag in the suppression of this
kind of more or less passive disorder, but recovery was none the less
sure. It will be recalled that, on the 11th March 1924, there were
7,000 decrees outstanding, representing £170,000. On the 31st
January 1926 there were only 3,434 such decrees, representing
£69,910.® This was still, of course, a far from normal position, but
the figures did indicate a substantial degree of recovery ; and a per-
manent measure, entitled the Enforcement of Court Orders Act, 1926,
which was passed into law on the 29th May 1926, achieved normality
within a comparatively short time.

1 Ddil Debates, vii, 1119. a Ibid., viii, 88.

3 Ibid., xiv, 890.

GREATNESS OF KEVIN O’HIGGINS 141

By the middle of the previous year (1925) the condition of the
country' was such that the temporary Public Safety Acts, which were
then due to expire, could be replaced by permanent measures. The
release of the internees had led, in some places, to a renewal of the
disorders in connection with which they had been detained j 1 but it
was a time of comparative peace, and it was thought better to eschew
emergency legislation and to bring in measures which would give
permanent powers to the Executive, no matter what government was
in power, for dealing with an attack upon the State. Hence the
Treasonable Offences Act, 1925, was passed, inflicting the death
penalty for levying war against the State and imposing varying sen-
tences of imprisonment for such offences as misprision of treason
(which was statutorily defined) and the intimidation of judges and
Ministers. The usurpation of executive authority or of parliamen-
tary functions, and the formation of a pretended military or police
force, were made misdemeanours punishable by fine or imprison-
ment or both. As a corollary' to this measure, a permanent Firearms
Act, 1925, was also passed.

All these measures for the public safety, for the suppression of
disorder, and for the restoration of self-respect, dignity, and honour
among the Irish people were carried upon the shoulders of one young
man, the late Kerin O’Higgins, Minister for Justice. Courageous in
thought as in action, resolute without being vindictive, his lodestar
throughout was the guiding principle proclaimed by Lincoln at
Gettysburg, that government of the people, by the people, for the
people, should not perish. On the 20th April 1932 Mr. De Valera, in
one of his first speeches in the Dail as head of the Government of that
Irish Free State which he had sought unsuccessfully to destroy, read
out a list of these Acts and classed them with the Coercion Acts
passed against Ireland by the British Government. 2 But by that time
Kevin O’Higginshad been in his grave nearly five years, slain by the
bullets of assaslins.

The Government a£d the State also surmounted troubles of a
different kind during this period. In March 1924 there was a mutiny
among certain Army officers, due partly to dissatisfaction with the
rate of advance in national status and partly to alleged grievances in
regard to demobilization. General O’Duffy, the head of the Civic
Guard, was appointed Commander-in-Chief and Inspector-General
' of the Forces to deal with the emergency, and the affair was settled
without bloodshed. As a consequence, but for opposite reasons, two
i Dail Debates, x, 273. 2 Ibid., xli, 193, 194.

142 BUILDING THE NEW STATE

members of the Executive Council resigned : the Minister for Industry
and Commerce (Mr. Joseph McGrath) on the 7th March 1924 and
the Minister for Defence (General Mulcahy) on the 19th of the same
month. Mr. Cosgrave took over the portfolio of Defence for the time
being (20th March), handing it over to Mr. Peter Hughes on the
21st November ; and Mr. Patrick McGilligan was appointed Minister
for Industry and Commerce on the 3rd April 1924, holding the post
until the Cosgrave Administration went out of office in 1932.

Shortly afterwards, Mr. McGrath, Mr. Se&n Milroy, and seven
other members of Mr. Cosgrave’s party became recalcitrant and
formed a sort of Cave of Adullam. At the end of October 1924 they
resigned from the Dail in a body and offered themselves for re-elec-
tion, seeking support for the foundation of a new National Party. In
the words of a contemporary writer, the new party ‘had no real
policy save vague denunciations of the Government for not using the
Free State as a stepping-stone to a Republic, and for being in the
grip of the Freemasons, an organization which in Ireland is endowed
with all the powers of the unknown’. 1 The miniature general elec-
tion which resulted (February 1925) was contested by the Govern-
ment party, by the new National Party, and by Mr. De Valera’s Sinn
F6in Party of abstentionists ; and, as the nine seats were spread over
seven counties and three out of the four provinces, it afforded an
excellent test of public opinion. During the progress of the campaign,
Kevin O’Higgins, speaking at Boyle, County Roscommon, on the
8th February, said: ‘We have got to face the facts. Mr. De Valera
hates facts like a cat hates water, and we have got to rub these facts
into him during the next few weeks. It is time we grew up and recog-
nized that we cannot just live in a world of make-believe. If we de-
nounce the Treaty and tear up the Constitution, it does not mean that
by the mere act of doing that you will get international recognition
of the sovereign and independent Republic. It is more likely to mean
a Crown Colony, and it is certain to mean the loss of the North-east,
as well as the economic ruin of the State.’ 2 The result was a striking
vindication of the Government’s policy. It won seven of the nine
seats, Sinn Fein won the remaining two, and the only mandate re-
ceived by the new National Party was a mandate to efface itself.

The local government elections which were held later in the same
year provided another test. The Government party held aloof from
them, its view being that party politics have no place in local affairs

The Round Table, September 1925, p.
Irish Independent, 9 February 1925

A PEACEFUL IRELAND 143

and that the most suitable men should be chosen for the work of
county councils and similar bodies, irrespective of their political
beliefs. But Mr. De Valera’s party held a different view, and contested
these elections on the issue of the Republic. The Republicans were
everywhere overwhelmed by the Farmers’ and Independent candi-
dates, who obtained a substantial majority on all the local bodies.

Thus by the end of the year 1925, which roughly coincides with the
end of the First Triennial Period of the Senate, a great change had
come over the country. The foundations had been well laid, the super-
structure was in process of erection, and the armed menace had been
successfully resisted. The national finances had been managed with the
strictest orthodoxy, and income-tax had been reduced by a shilling in
the pound. The Government established pursuant to the Treaty, and
based upon the will of the people, was firmly in the saddle ; and, by
a seeming miracle in so short a time, Ireland had become one of the
most peaceful countries in Europe.

CHAPTER VIII

THE WORK OF THE SENATE, 1923-5

Re-election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman — Co-option of Mr.
S. L. Brown, K.C— Value of Senate's work of revision— Attitude to
measures for restoration of order— Continuance of unsatisfactory rela-
tions with the Dail—New procedure for removal of deadlock by con-
ference-instances of its application— Money amendments in non-
Money Bills— Salaries of the District Justices— Decision on the
Senate's power of amendment — The First Triennial Election — Defects
of the system — Minor constitutional amendments — Conduct of the
Triennial Election — Analysis of the result — Work done in First Trien-
nial period.

Following the general election the Senate reassembled on the 19th
September 1923, pursuant to the Proclamation of the Governor-
General. As a result of the policy of the Executive not to initiate
Bills in the Upper House, there was little to be done for a con- ,
siderable time, during which the Dail was working at high pressure.
On the 12th December 1923 Lord Glenavy and Senator Douglas,
who had in the first instance been elected Chairman and Vice-Chair-
man for one year only, were unanimously re-elected for the remainder
of the Triennial Period. On the same day the Senate received an in-
valuable accession to its personnel by the co-option of Mr. Samuel
Lombard Brown, K.C., in the room of Senator Sir Horace Plunkett,
who had resigned. 1 The new Senator had been the leader of the Irish
Bar, and was one of the most brilliant lawyers of his time. Devoid of
any political bias or ambition, and utterly lacking in any forensic
insincerity, he proved a tower of strength to the Senate, to which he
devoted the whole of his time and of which, save for an interval of
two months, he remained a member until its abolition. It might be
1 Senate Debates, ii, 169-86.

144

SENATE’S WORK OF REVISION 145

said of Samuel Brown, as was said of John Stuart Mill during his
three years in the House of Commons, that he did only work that
needed to be done and that nobody else seemed equally able or
willing to do, and that he spoke only when he had something to say;
and Mr. Speaker Denison’s remark about Mill is true of him also,
that his presence in Parliament elevated the tone of the debates.

In the previous chapter the legislation of the period was divided
into three classes, covering the laying of the foundations of a national
polity, the erection of a superstructure, and the suppression of in-
ternal disorder. The Senate’s work of revision in all three classes was
very notable. In the first class ten amendments were inserted in the
Ministers and Secretaries Bill, seven in the Civil Service Regulation
Bill, six in the Garda Sfochana Bill, and forty-four in the Courts of
Justice Bill. The vast majority of these amendments were agreed to
by the Dail. Those made to the Courts of Justice Bill were particu-
larly important; most of them were due to the expert criticism and
skill in draftsmanship of Senator Brown, and his principal achieve-
ment in regard to this measure will be examined later in the chapter
on Delegated Legislation (Chapter XXXI). But it seems worth while
noticing that it was on the initiative of the Senate that a section
was inserted providing that, so far as practicable, a District Justice
assigned to an Irish-speaking area should have a competent know-
ledge of Irish. In Irish-speaking areas the poor are in a majority, and,
as the District Court is the poor man’s court, this was a sensible
amendment.

In regard to Bills of the second class, the fact that the various pro-
posals could be discussed in a non-party atmosphere by men having
an intimate knowledge of the subject-matter had a wholly beneficial
effect on the measures brought before the House. Mr. Hogan’s three
comprehensive Bills, dealing respectively with the marketing of eggs,
the marketing of butter, and the improvement of livestock, had the
benefit of criticism from such practical farmers as Senator Butler (the
chairman of the Farmers’ Union), Senator Sir John Keane, and
Senator Counihan, with the result that a total of seventy-four amend-
ments was inserted in them, all of which were accepted by the Dail.
To the Railways Bill twenty-eight amendments were made — many of
them of far-reaching importance. But all these figures are outstripped
by the case of the Local Government Bill, to which no less than 212
amendments were tabled by Senators. Of these, 109 were carried, all
except six being agreed to by the other House. Statistics such as these
show the industry of the Second Chamber in its work of revision, and

146 THE WORK OF THE SENATE, 1923-5

also the benefit to the country’s laws which resulted from it; and
they are a sufficient answer to the charge so frequently made by Mr.
De Valera’s followers in later years that the Senate was little more
than a sleeping partner in the legislative scheme until Mr. Cosgrave
went out of office.

The general attitude of the Senate towards Bills of the third class,
namely, those dealing with the public safety, has already been des-
cribed in Chapter VI and need not be repeated here in any detail. A
few examples may, however, be given of the efforts made, even at
such a time of national danger, to guard against a possible abuse of
the exceptional powers which it was necessary to accord to the
Executive and to the Army. The Public Safety (Powers of Arrest and
Detention) Bill, 1924, gave certain powers of arrest to the military.
With a view to ensuring, so far as possible, the supremacy of the
civil arm, the Senate inserted an amendment providing that no
dwelling-house should be entered for the purpose of effecting such
an arrest unless, if it was practicable, the military were accompanied
by a member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or of the Civic
Guard. 1 The Public Safety (Punishment of Offenders) Temporary
Bill, 1924, contained a schedule of offences of varying degrees of
gravity, such as arson, robbery under arms, trespass to land, and the
selling of illicit spirits ; and Section 1 of the Bill proposed that a
person convicted of any of these offences by a court- of summary
jurisdiction might be sentenced to a term of imprisonment not ex-
ceeding twelve months. The accused might be indicted before a
superior court, in which case he would, if convicted, suffer a severer
penalty, but there was a possibility that the Executive might choose
the court of first instance even for the graver offences, and so deprive
the prisoner of his constitutional right to trial by a jury. This possi-
bility was removed by an amendment inserted by the Senate, whereby
such cases were removed from the jurisdiction of a court of summary
jurisdiction, unless in the opinion of the court the offence was a minor
one fit to be tried summarily. 2 Under the Treasonable Offences Bill,
which made permanent provision for the public safety and which
came before the Senate in the following year, it was made a felony
to harbour, protect, or comfort persons committing certain offences
against the State, and, in the Bill as it left the Dail, the offence would
be complete the moment that the fact of harbouring and so on was
proved. The Senate made two amendments, under which the liability
to conviction of a person so accused was removed if he satisfied the
1 Senate Debates, ii, 552-7, 582, 583. 2 Ibid., ii, 1170-5, 1187.

DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN HOUSES 147

court that he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that the
person so harboured, comforted, or protected was engaged in offences
against the State. The same Bill made it an offence to incite members
of the military and police forces to refuse to obey the orders of their
superior officers. The Senate inserted the word ‘lawful’ before the
word ‘orders’. 1 All these amendments and a number of others made
by the Senate to Bills of this class were agreed to by the Dail.

The somewhat unsatisfactory relations between the Senate on the
one hand and the Government and the Dail on the other have
already been noticed ; and the two instances which follow are specially
mentioned merely because the first of them resulted in a very desir-
able change in procedure and the second raised a point of some con-
stitutional importance.

On the 20th December 1923 the Senate returned to the Dail a Bill
entitled the Local Government Electors Registration Bill, in which it
had inserted an amendment of a contentious character but of which
the purport does not otherwise concern us. In moving the rejection
of the amendment in the Dail on the following 11th January, the
Minister in charge of the Bill (Mr. J. A. Burke) was severely critical
of the Senate; the Chairman of the Dail made it clear that if the
amendment had originally been moved in that House he would have
been obliged to rule it out of order, and the President of the Execu-
tive Council used words which seemed to imply that it was unfair for
the Senate to insert a contentious amendment in a Bill which had
been passed by the Dail in a non-contentiftus atmosphere. 2 The Dail
did not disagree with the amendment immediately, but, on the 16th
January, sent a message to the Senate requesting the setting up of a
Joint Committee to consider procedure in regard to Senate amend-
ments to Bills. 3 When the message came before the Senate a week
later, the proposal was agreed to ; but Lord Glenavy took occasion
to recount the whole circumstances at great length and to vindicate
the rights and privileges of the House of which he was Chairman. 4

In its Report the Joint Committee expressed the opinion that, on
the disagreement by either House to an amendment of the other
House, the reason assigned for the disagreement should be one other
than a reason involving a question of order, and it suggested that the
Standing Orders of both Houses should be amended so as to allow
of a conference being set up to discuss the points at issue in cases of

1 Senate Debates, v, 112-14, 159-65, 238-40.

2 Dail Debates, vi, 131—43.

4 Senate Debates, ii, 470-81.

2 Ibid., vi, 230, 231.

148 THE WORK OF THE SENATE, 1923-5
disagreement. 1 The Report was adopted by both Houses, and the
Standing Orders were amended accordingly.

This new procedure for the removal of deadlock through con-
ference was far more likely to effect its object than the provision in
Article 38 of the Constitution for the convening of a joint sitting,
which was useless without the power of joint voting and which was
in fact never used. The conference method had the advantage that the
request for it could come from either House, whereas a joint sitting
could be demanded only by the Senate.

No conference was requested over the Local Government Electors
Registration Bill; the Dail disagreed with the amendment and the
Senate did not insist on it. The conference machinery was in fact
operated in only three cases, and it will be convenient to set them
forth here, even though two of them occurred outside the period
covered by this chapter.

Intoxicating Liquor ( General ) Bill , 1924. Two of the Senate amend-
ments prohibited the sale of alcoholic drink on Saint Patrick’s Day
(which is a public holiday in Ireland) ; a third provided that, in any
licensed premises where another business was carried on, the place
where drink was sold should be structurally separated from the rest
of the premises. The Dail disagreed with these three amendments and
requested a conference. The conference recommended the acceptance
of the first two (i.e. that Saint Patrick’s Day should be ‘dry’) and the
non-acceptance of the third. Both Houses agreed.

Shop Hours (. Drapery Trades , Dublin and Districts) Bill , 1926. The
closing hour for drapers’ shops was fixed in the Bill at 9 p.m. The
Senate altered the time to 7.30 p.m., and, the Dail having disagreed,
requested a conference. The conference recommended 8.30 p.m. as a
compromise, and this was accepted by both Houses.

Game Preservation Bill, 1929. One of the Senate amendments to
this Bill consisted of a section empowering the Minister for Justice
to establish a consultative council to assist him in framing regulations
thereunder, and a sub-section of this section provided that payment
out of public funds might be made to the members of such council in
respect of travelling expenses and subsistence allowance. On the
12th February 1930 the Minister for Justice proposed the agreement
of the Ddil to the whole new section, but the Chairman of the Ddil
intervened with a query as to whether the Minister had adverted to
the sub-section referred to. This intervention could only mean that,
m the opinion of the Chairman of the Ddil, the Senate had not the
1 Reports of Committees, vol. i, p. 533. , .

MONEY AMENDMENTS 149

power to insert an amendment involving the appropriation, actual or
potential, of public money. As such it was a clear violation of the
spirit of the agreement embodied in the Joint Committee’s Report of
1924, to which reference has already been made and of which the
Chairman of the Dail had been a signatory ; for it was stated in that
Report that, on the disagreement by either House to an amendment
of the other House, the reason assigned for the disagreement should
be one other than a reason involving a question of order. In the
circumstances the Minister for Justice asked to have the matter post-
poned. 1 On the 20th February, the Minister proposed the acceptance
of the section minus this particular sub-section, and the only reason
he gave was that it was a money clause. The proposal was accepted
by the Dail. 2

In the resultant message to the Senate no reason was assigned for
the rejection of the sub-section ; but in the debate on the message the
Minister informed the House that ‘that was possibly one of the
underlying reasons — that it was a money clause’. It was, in fact, the
only reason that had been given. The Senate insisted on the amend-
ment and requested a conference. 3 The conference reported that in
its opinion the payment of ' travelling expenses and subsistence
allowances to members of the Consultative Council could be effected
under another section of the Bill, and that, in these circumstances, the
constitutional question did not arise. Accordingly, the Senate did not
insist on the sub-section. 4

The constitutional question had, in fact, been decided years earlier ;
and this brings us to the second point of disagreement between the
Senate and the Government which occurred during the period
covered by this chapter and with which it is proposed to deal here.
Under the Constitution the Senate’s power of amending Bills was the
same as that of the Dail, except in regard to Bills certified by the
Chairman of the Ddil to be Money Bills. In the case of any Bill
which would, if passed, entail the appropriation of money, regard had
to be had to Article 37 of the Constitution, which read as follows :
‘Money shall not be appropriated by vote, resolution or law, unless
the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been
recommended by a message from the Representative of the Crown
acting on the advice of the Executive Council.’

This provision is, of course, more or less common form in all the
Constitutions of the Dominions. What happened in practice was that

1 Dail Debates, xxxiii, 34, 35. 2 Ibid., xxxiii, 675-7.

3 Senate Debates , xiii, 571-86. 4 Ibid., xiii, 1 162, 1 163.

150 THE WORK OF THE SENATE, 1923-5

a motion, in the terms of the message from the Representative of the
Crown, was tabled in the Ddil in the ease of every such Bill and passed
before the Committee Stage of the Bill was taken. Under the Stand-
ing Orders of the Dail, any such motion, or any amendment thereto
proposing to increase the amount mentioned therein, could be moved
only by a member of the Executive Council. Further, any amend-
ment to the Bill itself which, if passed, would increase or extend the
scope of the appropriation mentioned in the message could be
moved only by a member of the Executive.

These restrictions on the rights of members of the other House
were purely domestic and self-imposed. Though they did not derive
from the Constitution, they were perfectly proper. The Executive
Council was responsible to the Dail, and the Standing Orders of that
House were a matter for itself. The Senate was in different case. The
Executive Council was not responsible to it, and therefore any legis-
lative action carried by the Senate against the Government involved
no question of confidence. Moreover, there was nothing in the Con-
stitution which restricted the right of the Senate as to the character
or class of amendments which it might insert in non-Money Bills.
Yet on more than one occasion attempts had been made by the
Government to place Senators on the same footing as private mem-
bers of the Dail.

The matter came to an issue in 1924, in connection with an amend-
ment inserted by the Senate in the Courts of Justice Bill. This Bill
recast the whole judicial system of the country. It set up a Supreme
Court, a High Court, Circuit Courts (which corresponded to the old
County Courts, but with an enlarged area and an enlarged jurisdic-
tion), and District Courts, which replaced the old Petty Sessions
Courts and were also given an enlarged jurisdiction. The District
Courts were to be presided over by paid District Justices, sitting
alone. These District Justices had to be practising barristers or solici-
tors of six years’ standing, and they had, of course, to give their <
whole time to their duties. The Bill, as passed by the D&il, drew a
distinction between the method of payment of the judges and that
of the District Justices. The salaries of the judges were to be a charge
on the Central Fund (which is the same as the Consolidated Fund in
England), and this meant that the judges would be immune from
parliamentary criticism; but the salaries of the District Justices were
to be provided annually by Parliament, by means of the ordinary
Appropriation Act. This would have rendered them liable individually
t0 P ar ^amentary criticism. The Senate took the view, which seems

SALARIES OF DISTRICT JUSTICES 151

unquestionably correct, that the District Justices should be just as
independent in the exercise of their functions as the judges of the
Superior Courts, and, on the motion of Senator O’Farrell, it passed
an amendment the effect of which was to place the salaries of these
Justices on the Central Fund. The Attorney-General of the day
(afterwards Chief Justice Kennedy) took exception to the amend-
ment on the ground that it was one which it was not within the com-
petence of the Senate to insert. 1 The constitutional question involved
was referred to a Committee of the Senate, presided over by Lord
Glenavy, and the point which fell to be decided was, Could the
Senate amend an appropriation clause in a Bill other than a Money
Bill? After reviewing the whole circumstances, the Committee con-
cluded as follows :

‘The answer is to be found in the Constitution, which by Article 38
provides that every Bill initiated and passed by the Dail may, unless
it be a Money Bill, be amended in the Senate, and the Dail shall con-
sider any such amendment. The sole and only restriction to be found
in the Constitution upon this unlimited right on the part of the
Senate to amend any Bill other than a Money Bill is in the case of an
amendment which involves the appropriation of any part of the
revenues of the Free State, as no such amendment can be made un-
less and until the purpose of such appropriation has been recom-
mended by a message from the Governor-General under Article 37,
a condition precedent which is equally binding upon both Houses
of the Oireachtas. As this condition was admittedly fulfilled by the
message in the case of the particular amendment which has given
rise to this question, we have no hesitation in answering it in the
affirmative.’ 2

The Report was formally adopted by the Senate, after Lord
Glenavy had explained its implications (20th March 1924). 3 The
amendment was insisted on, and the Dail agreed to it with a slight
modification as to the point of time when it would commence to
operate. 4 An important principle affecting the constitutional rights
of the Second Chamber had thus been vindicated once and for all.

By the summer of 1925 preparation had to be made for the first
Triennial Election to the Senate. It will be recalled that, under the
Constitution, fifteen original members were due to retire, and added
to their number were four others who had been co-opted to fill casual

1 Senate Debates, li, 792-802, 918-24.

2 Reports of Committees, vol. i, p. 357. 3 Senate Debates, ii, 1 1 38-46.

4 Dail Debates, vi, 2784-8 and 2812-17.

152 THE WORK OF THE SENATE, 1923-5

vacancies. These nineteen seats were to be filled by an electorate con-
sisting of all citizens of the Irish Free State, duly qualified, who had
reached the age of thirty years, voting according to the principles of
proportional representation on a panel composed of three times as
many qualified persons as there were members to be elected, of
whom two-thirds were to be nominated by the Ddil and one-third by
the Senate: plus such former Senators as desired to be included in
the panel. Thus, in the circumstances then existing, the Senate had
to select nineteen candidates and the Ddil thirty-eight candidates,
and to these fifty-seven names had to be added those of the nineteen
retiring Senators, all of whom intimated their desire to offer them-
selves for re-election. The result was a ballot paper several feet long,
containing seventy-six names arranged in alphabetical order, from
which nineteen new Senators had to be elected.

We can see now that this was ridiculous. The original proposal
that the electorate should be the whole country was coupled with a
provision for a Senate of forty members. 1 As a result of the Agree-
ment with the Southern Unionists, the number had been increased
to sixty, but the system of election was retained, without regard to
the changed conditions. Obviously, the election of ten Senators from
a panel of twenty was a not unreasonable proposal, and it was at any
rate very different from the election of nineteen from a panel of
seventy-six. The difficulty brought about by the increased numbers
had been clearly foreseen by Deputy Darrell Figgis, who had been
Acting Chairman of the Constitution Committee. He spoke at some
length on the subject while the Constitution Bill was being con-
sidered by the Dail (4th October 1922) and in the course of his speech
he said: ‘Every three years all the voters in Ireland will receive, not
a convenient list of candidates, which they can study at a glance, and
of whom they may know something, but they will receive something
like a small book of candidates’ names against whom they will have
to vote. It has been the experience in Proportional Representation
that when you get much beyond the tenth or eleventh candidate you
are increasing the difficulties very considerably.’ 8 Unfortunately, no
attention was paid to these criticisms, and the Senate election scheme
was unaltered.

Before the first Triennial Election could be held it was necessary
to remedy certain defects, and this was done by the Constitution

^°‘ ^ ^ Ct ’ became law on the 11th July

1925. First, it was necessary to define the duration of the Triennial

1 1 ml Debates ' 1154 . 2 Ibidij i} j 15 5 4

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 153

Periods. The Senate had first met on the 11th December 1922, but the
Constitution had come into operation five days earlier. The Act pro-
vided that the periods should be reckoned from the 6th December
1922, and from the appropriate triennial anniversary of that day
(Article 31a). Second, Article 32a provided that a Triennial Election
might be held at any time not earlier than three months before nor
later than three months after the conclusion of a Triennial Period;
and it made provision for the contingency of a casual vacancy occur-
ring after the electoral panel had been formed. Third, Article 34 was
amended to meet an unforeseen difficulty. As the Article stood, the
sixteenth member elected was to fill the casual vacancy first created
in order of time, and so on. This would have meant that No. 16
would fill Senator MacPartlin’s vacancy and so sit for six years,
while Nos. 17, 18, and 19 would fill those of Senators Sir Horace
Plunkett, Sir Hutcheson Poe, and Dr. Sigerson and so sit for nine
years. The Article was amended so as to provide that the sixteenth
member should be deemed to have filled the vacancy created by
the death or resignation of the Senator the unexpired period of
whose term of office was greatest at the time of the election, and
soon.

This Act was the first of a series of non-controversial Acts amend-
ing either the Constitution or the electoral laws in relation to the
Senate. In the circumstances, it might have been expected that these
measures would have been introduced first in the Senate by the
Government ; but they were all initiated in the Dail.

The Rules for the selection by the Senate and the Dail of their
respective portions of the panel were duly approved by each House. 1
They were similar to each other, and provided for personal voting by
secret ballot, within each Chamber, on principles of Proportional
Representation.

The selection of the Senate portion of the panel look place on the
1st July 1925. There were twenty-nine candidates for the nineteen
places. Voting papers were distributed to forty-seven Senators (out
of a possible sixty), the same number of valid votes was returned, and
the names of the successful candidates will be found recorded in the
Senate’s Journal of Proceedings for that day. 2 The result can only be
described as a very great disappointment. It is true that there were a
few distinguished names among the successful, but the list as a whole
could not compare with the fist of the ten rejected. These were : 3

1 Senate Debates, v, 611-56; Ddil Debates, xii, 1313-46.

- Journal, 1925, p. 218. 3 Irish Independent, 2 July 1925.

154 THE WORK OF THE SENATE, 1923-5

David Barry
L. Grattan Esmonde
Lady Gregory
John J. Horgan
Hugh A. Law

John McCann >

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks
Dr. Lombard Murphy
Sir J. H. Scott
J. J. Stafford

Nobody who is acquainted with the public life of Ireland can doubt
that all of these persons had either done useful public service or repre-
sented important aspects of the nation’s life, and so had the qualifica-
tion laid down for Senators. The same could by no means be said of
all the successful candidates. The rejection of Lady Gregory, who
was world famous as the founder of the Abbey Theatre, was the most
astonishing of all. Of the nineteen retiring Senators, eighteen were
present and voted ; and it is perhaps not cynical to assume that some
of them might not be over-anxious that candidates should be returned
who would prove formidable rivals at the election. The result was the
subject of caustic comment by 'Senator Dr. Gogarty, who expressed
the fear that ‘the Senate might become a refuge and an asylum for
pensioners’. 1

The Dail made its selection on the 8th July 1925. For the thirty-
eight places on the panel there were fifty-seven candidates. While the
voting was in progress the Leader of the Opposition (Deputy John-
son) entered a vigorous protest against the ‘candidates on whose
behalf there has been a great deal of canvassing, telegraph-sending,
letter-writing and personal importuning’. 2 We may be sure that, in
some cases, these activities were motived by the desire to obtain an
assured income of £360 a year for twelve years ; and it is a fact of
some significance in this connection that among the fifty-seven candi-
dates there were eight former members of the Dail, three of whom had
been rejected by the electors. 3 The number of Deputies who voted
was 101 and there were 100 valid votes, one ballot paper being re-
jected as invalid. The list of the thirty-eight successful candidates is
printed in the Ddil Journal of the day. 4 Though it is not specially
distinguished, it is on the whole superior to the Senate list. The voting
was on strict party lines, and the thirty-eight candidates were made
up as follows : Government party, 21 ; Independents, 9 ; Farmers’
Party, 5 ; and Labour Party, 3.

The polling day was Thursday, 17th September. The electorate
numbered approximately 1,300,000, and they were expected to make

1 Senate Debates, v, 865, 866.

” Irish Independent, 9 July 1925.

* Journal, 1925, p. 453; Ddil Debates, xii, 2163.

2 Ddil Debates , xii, 2161.

RESULT OF TRIENNIAL ELECTION 155

an intelligent choice of nineteen persons from a list containing
'seventy-six names, most of which they had never seen or heard of
before. The Republicans, of course, boycotted the election, and the
day was wet in most parts of the country. As might have been ex-
pected, the result was a fiasco. Only about 25 per cent of the electors
troubled to record their votes, except in County Monaghan, where
a poll of 80 per cent brought the Chairman of the County Council,
Mr. Thomas Toal, into second place. The quota was only 15,286, but
more than half the successful candidates failed to obtain it and were
elected without a quota. The counting of the votes took sixteen days,
and the result was as follows :

1. Sir William B. Hickie

2. Thomas Toal

*3. John T. O’Farrell

*4. William Cummins

5. Cornelius Kennedy

6. Michael F. O’Hanlon

7. James Dillon

*8. Thomas Foran

9. Sir Edward Bellingham
*10. Dr. Henry L. BamiviUe

Of the nineteen outgoing senators, eight were re-elected, including all
three members of the Labour Party. Dr. Douglas Hyde, who had been
co-opted to the Senate in the previous February, was not far from
the bottom of the list with a miserable 1,721 first preferences, and
Mr. S. L. Brown did little better with 2,787. It was too much to
expect that Mr. Brown’s qualities would be appreciated by the elec-
torate at large; but Dr. Hyde was in different case. Famous as the
protagonist of the Irish language, he was the father of the intellectual
renaissance in Ireland, and, though he was never a politician, his
work and influence were such that it is probably not too much to say
that but for him there would have been no Treaty and no Irish Free
State. Recognition of his work came later, however, when he was
elected unopposed as the first President under the Constitution of
1937. Attempts have been made to explain Dr. Hyde’s defeat on
grounds other than the indifference of the people to the Irish language,
but these ignore, or are unaware of, the fact that there were three
other candidates who are justly celebrated for their work in this field
(Professors Henry and O’Brien of Galway and Mr. R. A. Foley of

* Outgoing Senator.

11. Michael Fanning
*12. James J. Parkinson
13. Stephen O’Mara
*14. Thomas Linehan

15. Joseph O’Connor

16. Sir Edward Coey Bigger

17. Francis McGuinness
*18. T. W. Westropp Bennett
*19. John J. Counihan

156 THE WORK OF THE SENATE, 1923-5

Dublin) and that all three were near the bottom of the poll. The
lamentable truth is that, whatever the politicians may say or think,
the vast majority of the people of Ireland care little or nothing about
Irish.

Of the eleven new Senators, all except two were from the Ddil
portion of the panel. It was generally understood that the return of
Major-General Sir William Hickie and of Brigadier-General Sir
Edward Bellingham was due to the votes of ex-service men of the
British Army, and that Messrs. Kennedy and Fanning owed their
success to the licensed trade. This, coupled with the success of all
three Labour candidates, suggests that such a system of election
favours the return of those who have the backing of organized groups.
The election had at any rate one good result. Not a single candidate
of the ‘professional politician’ type was successful, and none of the
new Senators could be described as an extreme party man. 1

The election had taken place in the middle of the summer recess,
and the Senate met on only one occasion before the end of the First
Triennial Period. The members could look back with justifiable pride
on a record of good work well done. They had considered about 130
Bills, of which more than one-third had been amended. The number
of amendments totalled over 500, all but about a dozen being ac-
cepted by the Dail. If the chief function of the Second Chamber was
to be in the field of revision, it had made an excellent beginning.

1 For a discussion of the election from the expert point of view, see Repre-'
smtation , No. 43 (December 1925), and the American Political Science Review
(February 1926), vol. xx, pp. 117-20.

CHAPTER IX

THE SENATE CASKET

Alice Stopford Green — Nature and purpose of her gift — The remark-
able message which accompanied it— Acceptance by the Senate — Strict
fulfilment of the conditions prescribed— Ultimate destination of the
Casket audits contents.

On the 26th November 1924 Senator Mrs. Alice Stopford Green,
the distinguished historian, who was the senior elected member of
the Senate and who was then approaching seventy years of age, pre-
sented to the Senate an exquisitely wrought casket of metalwork,
which had been executed to her order by Miss Mia Cranwill, a noted
Irish artist in that medium. As Mrs. Green was ill at the time, the
communication in which she offered the gift was read to the House
on her behalf by Senator Brown.

‘Very early after my generous and unexpected election I formed
the desire to offer to the Seanad some effective service, as it was plain
that my working days were slipping away.

‘When the plan of the casket came into my heart I hoped to be
able to present it before our summer separation.

‘But, as you will see, the work was long and difficult, and could by
no means have been finished until now.

‘ My request to the Seanad is that they will find it possible to accept
the offering I lay before them .

‘My purpose was that the shrine should contain a vellum roll, on
which every member of the first Irish Seanad elected up to this date
should sign his name. And that the shrine should be placed on the
table at the opening of every meeting of the Seanad — now and in the
future — to be a perpetual memorial of the foundation of this body,
and a witness in later times of its increasing service to the country.

‘If the Senators do me the honour of accepting this gift, with these

157

15 8 THE SENATE CASKET

conditions, I will then proceed to do what could not be done without
their consent— to inscribe on the shrine my name as donor, and that
of the artist, and to place in it the vellum roll.’ 1

The speech which Mrs. Green had intended to deliver on the occa-
sion of the presentation was also read, in the form of a message to
the Senate. There have been many Irish patriots who were also
masters of the English tongue; but the lofty ideals for Ireland ex-
pressed in this message, and the passionate love of country which
inspired them, can seldom have found expression in language at once
so moving and so beautiful. As it is not fitting that this message
should lie buried in the limbo of forgotten parliamentary records, it
shall be reproduced here in full.

‘I ask leave to send a few words as to the casket which I offer to
the Seanad.

‘Senators will agree that we should place no emblem before us in
this Assembly that is not of Ireland, in spirit and in workmanship, .
carrying in it the faith both of the Old Irish world and of the New. I
have insisted, therefore, that the form of the casket should go back
in direct descent to the “shrines” designed by the Irish over a
thousand years ago. The artist has magnificently proved the power
of that spiritual inheritance which has been bequeathed to us from
an Old Ireland ; and has shown that a really living art has no need
to copy in slavish routine, and can to-day be as free and original and
distinguished as in the times of ancient renown, supposed to have
been lost.

‘Thus the shrine in its intense vitality carries to us its own message.
That if we want to revive here an Irish nation we must dig our roots
deep into its soil, and be nourished by that ancient earth. In Old
Ireland, a land of many peoples, it was not privileges of race that
united Irishmen in one country and under one law. It was a common
loyalty to the land that bore them. “This then is my foster-mother,
the island in which ye are, even Ireland. Moreover, it is the mast and
the produce, the flower and the food of this island that have sustained
me from the Deluge until to-day.” This feeling was the refrain of
Irish nationality, the loyalty of a people made one by their sonship
to the land that bore them, an early and passionate conception of
nationality. A sudden and brief outburst by an Irish poet of the old
time has no parallel in European mediaeval history— “The counsels
of God concerning virgin Eriu are greater than can be told.”

1 Journal of Proceedings, 1924, p. 297.

MRS. GREEN’S REMARKABLE MESSAGE 159

‘From the beginning, Ireland has been rich in her hospitality to
men of good-will coming within her borders. And at all times there
have been incomers who have honourably responded to that genero-
sity, and have become faithful members of her people. She has had
her reward among the strangers who under her wide skies have felt
the wonder of the land, and the quality of its people, and have entered
into her commonwealth.

‘Through the long record of wars and assaults, in eve iy generation
in turn, men who came as warriors, even the roughest of them, re-
mained as men of Ireland. They took their share in defence of their
new home, and endured, if need were, in evil times outrage, ruin and
death in the cause of Irish freedom and independence. No real his-
tory of Ireland has yet been written. When the true story is finally
worked out — one not wholly occupied with the many and insatiable
plunderers — it will give us a noble and reconciling vision of Irish
nationality. Silence and neglect will no longer hide the fame of
honourable men. We shall learn the ties which did in fact ever bind
the dwellers in Ireland together. Whether we are of an ancient Irish
descent, or of later Irish birth, we are united in one people, and we
are bound by one lofty obligation to complete the building of our
common nation. We have lived under the breadth of her skies, we
have been fed by the fatness of her fields, and nourished by the
civilization of her dead. Our people lie in her earth, and we our-
selves must in that earth await our doom. We have shared our
country’s sorrows, and we expect her joys. "The mother that has
nursed us is she, and when you have looked on her she is not un-
lovely.” To Ireland we have given our faith. In Ireland is our hope.’ 1

By formal resolution, the Senate gratefully accepted the gift of the
Casket on the conditions named by the donor; and it further resolved
that, in addition to the vellum roll containing the names of the mem-
bers, the message of Alice Stopford Green which is printed above
should also be inscribed on vellum and enclosed within the Casket. 2
The engrossment was executed, with illuminated capitals, by George
Atkinson, esq., R.H.A., the head of the Dublin Metropolitan School
of Art; and an ornamental silver band of Irish design was made by
the same school, wherewith to enclose the vellums.

Alice Stopford Green died on the 28th May 1929, and so did not
live to see the end of the Senate on which she had set such high hopes.

1 Journal of Proceedings, 1924, pp. 298, 299.

s Senate Debates, iii, 1140-5.

160 THE SENATE CASKET

The conditions attached to the gift were strictly fulfilled. From the
date of presentation until the final sitting of the House on the 19th
May 1936 the Casket was placed on the Chairman’s desk in the
Chamber immediately prior to every meeting; and one of the last
formal acts of the Senate before its abolition was to offer the Casket
and its contents to the Council of the Royal Irish Academy as a gift
for preservation.

CHAPTER X

THE DIVORCE CONTROVERSY

The law prior to the establishment of the Irish Free State— Limited
jurisdiction of the Irish Courts — Contrast with English law— Procedure
for divorce by promotion of Private Bill— The changed position caused
by the Treaty and Constitution — Joint Standing Orders for Private
Bills — The procedure summarized— Lodgement of Divorce Bills—
Absence of special provision in Standing Orders and reasons therefor—
Report of Joint Committee — An unsatisfactory position — Mr. Cos-
grave's motion in the Dail—Lord Glenavy's adverse ruling in the
Senate — Senator Douglas's motion for removal of deadlock — Senator
W. B. Yeats's unfortunate speech — Senator Douglas's position ex-
plained— The Ddil rejects the Senate's proposal— Mr. Cosgrove's
reasons — The Senate resolution rescinded— The problem Unsolved-
Misrepresentation of the Senate's attitude — Effect on the First Trien-
nial Election.

X he spirit of close co-operation between men of different religious
and political beliefs which had hitherto characterized the proceedings
of the Senate received a severe, though temporary, set-back by the
divorce controversy which broke out in 1925. In view of its intrinsic
importance, and of the effect which its repercussions in the country
had on the Triennial Election held in September of that year, it is as
well that the facts should be set out here.

Before the establishment of the Irish Free State, jurisdiction in re-
gard to matrimonial causes and matters was exercised, in the case of
persons domiciled in Ireland, under the Matrimonial Causes Mar-
riage Law (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1870, by the King’s Bench
Division of the High Court of Justice, sitting in Dublin : such jurisdic-
tion having been transferred thereto from the former Court for Matri-
monial Causes and Matters by the joint operation of the Judicature
m 161

162 THE DIVORCE CONTROVERSY

(Ireland) Acts, 1877 and 1897. The jurisdiction was the same as that
of the ancient jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts prior to 1871,
i.e. it was limited to (a) the granting of decrees for divorce a mensa et
thoro on the statutory grounds of adultery, cruelty, and unnatural
practices, and (b) the granting of declarations of nullity of marriage
for causes existing at the date of the marriage, e.g. impotence. A
divorce a mensa et thoro is, in effect, a judicial separation. The rela-
tionship of husband and wife ceases, from the point of view of legal
rights and obligations, to exist; but the parties are not free to re-
marry. The power to grant a full divorce a vinculo matrimonii , which
severs the marriage bond for all purposes and leaves the parties free
to remarry, never resided in the Irish courts.

The position in Ireland was thus in sharp contrast to that in
England, where, under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, the Pro-
bate and Matrimonial Division of the High Court of Justice has
power to grant decrees of divorce a vinculo matrimonii in cases in
which the husband is domiciled in England or Wales, The English
court has the further powers, not possessed by the Irish matrimonial
court, to vary a settlement made on the marriage, to deal with the
custody of the children of the marriage, and to give damages against
a co-respondent.

A person of Irish domicile desirous of obtaining a divorce a vinculo
matrimonii had to invoke the sovereign power of Parliament and to
proceed by way of ad hoc legislation. Prior to the Union in 1800 a
number of such Bills were passed by the Irish Parliament (Grattan’s
Parliament). Thereafter, the jurisdiction of the Irish Parliament was
transferred to the Imperial Parliament at Westminster. In the years
immediately before the Treaty what occurred in actual practice was
that a petitioner obtained his or her decree of divorce a mensa et thoro
from the Court of King’s Bench in Dublin, and then promoted a
Private Bill for divorce a vinculo matrimonii in the Imperial Parlia-
ment. Special Standing Orders were framed to deal with such Bills,
the record of the proceedings in the King’s Bench and the judgement
of the court had to be produced, and the most stringent precautions
were taken against collusion or fraud.

As a result of the Treaty and the Constitution, the sovereign power
m this, as in every other legislative matter, passed from the Imperial

ar ament to the Parliament in Dublin, so far as concerned that part
of Ireland comprised in the area of the Irish Free State.

n November 1923 Standing Orders for Private Bills in general were .
jointly adopted by the Senate and the Ddil. These Standing Orders

PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE 163

were based on those of the British House of Commons, but as much
as possible of the procedure governing the passage of such Bills
through , the two Houses was made joint, so as to save expense
to the promoters. It is desirable to present this procedure in
outline, as it is necessary to a proper understanding of the divorce
controversy.

In accordance with the Standing Orders, the Vice-Chairman of the
Senate had charge of Private Bills in his House, and the Deputy
Chairman of the Dail had charge of them in the Dail ; that is to say,
they moved the requisite motions in their respective Houses, but they
moved them pro forma, and had no concern with the merits or other-
wise of a particular Bill. Any person, or group of persons, desiring to
introduce a Private Bill had to lodge an application in the Private
Bill Office in conformity with prescribed conditions. After the expiry
of one month the Examiner of Private Bills (a permanent official)
publicly examined the Bill, and reported to both Houses whether or
not the Bill had complied with the Standing Orders. There was an
appeal from his decision to a Joint Committee on Standing Orders,
which consisted of three members from each House and a chairman
appointed jointly by the Chairman of the Senate and the Chairman
of the Ddil. The Vice-Chairman of the Senate for the time being was
always appointed to this position.

In normal cases, i.e. those in which the Examiner reported that the
Standing Orders had been complied with and no appeal from his
decision had been received, the Bill was deemed to have been read a
first time in the Senate. After a prescribed interval, it received a
Second Reading in the Senate, and thereupon stood referred to a
Joint Committee of both Houses, appointed ad hoc. After the Joint
Committee had considered the Bill, it was returned, with or without
amendment, to the Senate, where the Fourth and Fifth Stages took
place (these correspond to the Report Stage and Third Reading in
England). It then came before the Dail for its Fourth and Fifth
Stages, the previous stages being deemed to have been passed. On the
conclusion of the Fifth Stage in the Dail, the Bill was sent to the
Governor-General for the signification of the Royal Assent.

It should be pointed out that each House had power to reject a
Bill at any stage after the First Stage, or to take such other action as
would bring the proceedings in regard to it to an end. For example,
in 1927 the Dail declined to set up a Joint Committee to consider the
Merrion Square (Dublin) Bill, the purpose of which was to erect a
War Memorial in one of the principal Dublin squares; and the, Bill

164 THE DIVORCE CONTROVERSY

had to be withdrawn by the promoters. 1 In 1931 the Senate rejected
two Private Bills on Second Reading; one for the registration of hair-
dressers 2 and the other for the conferring of Irish Free State citizen-
ship on a Czechoslovak national. 3 -

We now come to the question of Private Bills for Divorce. Before
the end of February 1924, i.e. very shortly after the establishment of
the Private Bill Office, no less than three such Bills were lodged with
the Examiner. No special provision had been made in the Standing
Orders for dealing with Bills of this kind. The reason for the omission
is obvious. The population of the Irish Free State is overwhelmingly
Catholic; and the doctrine of the Catholic Church regarding the in-
dissolubility of marriage is well known. It is hardly too much to say
that every Irish Catholic regards the subject of divorce with abhor-
rence. In the circumstances, the only Standing Order which could
apply to the three Bills in question was No. 1, which read as follows :
‘Every Bill promoted for the particular interest or benefit of any
person, or that interferes with the private property of any person,
otherwise than in the interests of the public generally and as a measure
of public policy, shall be treated as a Private Bill.’ The Examiner of
Private Bills informed the Joint Committee on Standing Orders (as
stated in its subsequent Report) that this Standing Order was the
only one applicable, and that if no further Standing Orders were
prepared dealing with Bills of this character he would have no
option but to report that the Standing Orders had been complied
with, and the three Bills would then be deemed to be read a first
time.

The personnel of the Committee was : Senator Douglas (chairman),
Senators Barrington, S. L. Brown, K.C., and Farren, Deputies Bryan
Cooper, Professor Magennis, and 6 Maille. In the circumstances, the
Committee considered the position and presented a Report to both
Houses, dated the 11th July 1924, in which the whole problem was
posed but no solution was propounded. 4 They stated that ‘whilst
the Committee do not desire to prejudge the decision to be reached
by the Oireachtas, they consider it proper to point out that the
present position is unsatisfactory from every point of view, as under
Standing Order No. 1 unrestricted power is given to introduce
Divorce Bills into the Oireachtas even in cases where a judgment of a
court of law has not been previously obtained’.

The question was shelved for a considerable time until at length,

\ PM Abates, xix, 395-438.
Ibid., xiv, 2058, 2059. *

2 Senate Debates, xiv, 693-728.
Reports of Committees, vol. i, p. 637.

LORD GLENAVY’S RULING 165

on the 11th February 1925, Mr. Cosgrave proposed the following
motion in the Ddil :

‘That the Joint Committee on Standing Orders relative to Private
Business be requested to submit additional Standing Orders regulat-
ing the procedure to be adopted in connection with Private Bills re-
lating to Matrimonial matters other than Bills of Divorce a vinculo
matrimonii, and to propose such alterations in the Standing Orders as
will prevent the introduction of Bills of Divorce a vinculo matrimonii ;
and that a Message be sent to the Senate requesting its concurrence
in this Resolution.’

The motion was seconded by Kevin O’Higgins, the Vice-President,
and the debate upon it, which was short, was throughout on a high
level and of a temperate character. The Catholic point of view was
clearly expounded by the proposer and seconder, and the spokesmen
of the small Protestant minority in the D£il, while expressing their
personal dislike of divorce, stated their objections to the motion on
the ground of principle. The motion was carried without a division,
and the appropriate message was sent to the Senate. 1

The message came before the Senate on the 5th March following,
when the Chairman (Lord Glenavy) ruled that no parallel motion
could be moved in that House, on the ground that any such motion
would be out of order, as being a violation of the Constitution and
of the Standing Orders. He gave the reasons for his ruling at con-
siderable length, but,- put shortly, they were as follows. The right of a
citizen to petition Parliament by way of a Private Bill (not, of course,
the right to have such a Bill passed) was an existing legal right, at
Common Law. As such, it came within the ambit of Article 73 of the
Constitution, which provides that the laws in force at the date on
which the Constitution came into operation shall continue to be of
full force and effect until repealed or amended by enactment of the
Oireachtas. Hence the extinction of an existing legal right could be
achieved only by statute, not by resolution. Article 65 enabled the
High Court to decide upon the validity of any law having regard to
the provisions of the Constitution, but this power did not extend to
the constitutionality or otherwise of a resolution. Lastly, the Senate
Standing Orders specified the matters which might be dealt with by
resolution, but expressly provided that ‘the matters which shall be
dealt with by Bills shall include all legislation’. 2

There can be no doubt that Lord Glenavy’s ruling was correct, and
the manner of its delivery was certainly unexceptionable, since he
1 Dm Debates, x, 155-82. 2 Senate Debates, iv, 929-45.

166 THE DIVORCE CONTROVERSY >

dealt purely with the general principles of law involved, and stated
expressly that he had no interest in the question of facilities for
divorce. In the nature of things, however, his action was bound to
result in considerable ill feeling against the Senate, both in the Ddil
and in the country. The reasons for his ruling were not such as could
be readily apprehended by the non-legal mind. It was, in fact, called
in question in a debate in the Senate on the 30th April 1925, in which
some Senators obviously found it difficult to distinguish the general
legal principle involved from its special application to the subject of
divorce. 1 If the motion was out of order in the Senate, it was equally
so in the Ddil, and so there was an implied (but unavoidable) censure .
on the Government for proposing it and on the Chairman of the Ddil .
for permitting it to be moved. Non-Catholics, though always a mino-
rity in the Senate, were much more numerous than they were in the
other House, and there was the equally irrelevant (and entirely for-
tuitous) circumstance that the Chairman of the Senate was himself a
Protestant. In view of these facts, it is perhaps not surprising that his
ruling was misunderstood and that the Senate became the object of
misrepresentation.

With the object of resolving the deadlock caused by the ruling,
Senator Douglas (who, it will be remembered, was chairman of the
Joint Committee on Private Business) tabled the following motion in
the Senate :

‘That in the opinion of the Senate the object desired by the Ddil in
its Message of the 12th February would be best achieved by the adop r
tion by both Houses of the Oireachtas of the following resolu-
tion: “That the Joint Committee on Standing Orders relative to
Private Business be requested to submit additional Standing Orders
regulating the procedure to be adopted in connection with Private
Bills relating to matrimonial matters, including a Standing Order or
Orders which will prevent Bills of Divorce a vinculo matrimonii from
being deemed to have been introduced under Standing Order 55 and
which will provide that such Bills must be read a first time in each

House before they are further proceeded with in the Senate.”

That a Message be sent to the Ddil requesting its concurrence in
this Resolution in place of that proposed in its Message of the 12th
February.’

This motion was moved by Senator Douglas on the 11 th June 1925.
e explained the reasons for it in a speech which, one would have
t ought, was hardly capable of being misunderstood. The purport of

1 Senate Debates, v, 38-72.

SENATOR W. B. YEATS’S SPEECH 167

the motion, was, of course, obvious. Short of actual legislation pro-
hibiting divorce (which, apparently, the Government was unwilling
to contemplate), the method proposed was the only one which, in
view of Lord Glenavy’s ruling, was capable of achieving the result
desired by the Government, the Dail, and the country. There would
no longer be any question of a Divorce Bill being ‘deemed’ to have
been read a first time in the Senate. Before any such Bill could be
said to be properly started on its legislative career, it would have to
receive the approval of both Houses by means of a First Reading in
each House. This was a plain impossibility, since there was a Catholic
majority in the Senate and an overwhelming Catholic majority in the
Dail. In the circumstances, no individual would be likely to waste
time and money in promoting such a Bill.

The course which the debate took was unfortunate. The two items
before the House were the Report of the Joint Committee and
Senator Douglas’s motion. As the former was purely expository and
did not ask the House to take any specific action, any debate on it
was out of order; and, in accordance with the rules of parliamentary
procedure, the terms of the motion did not permit of a general dis-
cussion on the question of divorce or no divorce. Yet the Chairman
took the Report first and allowed the late Senator W. B. Yeats, the
distinguished poet, to open a debate on it. His speech was nothing
less than an envenomed attack on the religion of the majority of his
fellow countrymen. He attacked the Catholic Church in general, and
in Ireland in particular. He joined issue, on the subject of divorce,
with Cardinal O’Donnell, perhaps the most statesmanlike ecclesiastic
Ireland had produced for generations. He lashed with invective the
Protestant Bishop of Meath, who a short time previously had made
a striking pronouncement against divorce. He ridiculed the authen-
ticity of the Gospels. He dilated on the moral delinquencies, real or
alleged, of Nelson, O’Connell, and Parnell, whose statues adorn
Dublin’s principal street. (‘Do you not think we might leave the dead
alone?’ asked Lord Glenavy. ‘I would hate to leave the dead alone,’
retorted Senator Yeats.) And he concluded by bombastic references
to the superiority of the ascendancy class.

This extraordinary speech was happily unique in the history of the
Senate. Its author was not provoked into unwisdom by the utterances
of previous speakers, for he opened the debate. Nor was he carried
away by the self-engendered heat of the moment, since his speech was
delivered from a manuscript which had obviously been carefully pre-
pared. It has been necessary to refer to it because it poisoned the

168 THE DIVORCE CONTROVERSY

atmosphere that surrounded the question of divorce, and to some
extent explains, though it does not excuse, the ridiculous charges
subsequently made in the country against Senator Douglas and those
Senators, Catholic and non-Catholic, who voted for his motion.

Lord Glenavy, in the course of his brilliant career at the Bar, had
acquired the reputation of coming into court with his brief unread,
and of mastering it in all its details within a few minutes. He imported
this habit into the Senate, but the Chair of a House of Parliament is
no place for the display of such virtuosity. During Senator Yeats’s
speech, he had been engaged in reading the Report for the first time,
looking up occasionally to rebuke the speaker for his grosser breaches
of good taste, and when Senator Yeats sat down he announced to the
House, with considerable naive td, his discovery that the Report was
a colourless document which did not commit the House to anything,
and deprecated a discussion on the lines initiated by Senator Yeats.
Not unnaturally, there was a chorus of protest ; but a good-humoured,
statesmanlike speech by Senator Colonel Moore on the one side and
a temperate exposition by Senator Bagwell of the Protestant point of
view on the other did much to raise the tone of the debate, and when'
the Vice-Chairman rose to move his motion he did so in a calmer
atmosphere.

Senator Douglas (who is a member of the Religious Society of
Friends, in which divorce is practically unknown) made it clear at the
outset that his personal views on the sanctity and indissolubility of
the marriage tie are in substance those of the Catholic Church. He
explained that his connection with the subject was fortuitous, and
that if he had known beforehand that the Joint Standing Committee
would have had to deal with the question of divorce he would not
have accepted the chairmanship of it. In regard to the proposal before
the House, which he put forward entirely on his own responsibility,
he stated that it was the duty of the Senate to recognize the fact ‘that
the vast majority of the people are not prepared to accord divorce
facilities to a small minority’, and showed that the method suggested
in his motion was, in the circumstances, the only practicable method
of giving effect to such recognition.

A desultory debate followed, in which the outstanding contribu-
tion was a speech by Senator O’Farrell, who supported the motion,
and, treating divorce as a social question, attacked it on that ground.
The motion was carried on a division by fifteen votes to thirteen; ten'
Senators were present at the sitting but did not vote— eight Catholics
and two non-Catholics. 1

1 Senate Debates , v, 426-82.

MR. COSGRAVE’S OBJECTIONS 169

The resultant message came before the Dail on the 25th June 1925,
when the following motion was proposed by Mr. Cosgrave: ‘That
in the opinion of the Dail the object intended by the" Dail in the
Resolution of the 11th February 1925 would not be achieved by the
Resolution adopted by the Senate on the 12th June 1925, and that
a Message to this effect be sent to the Senate.’ Mr. Cosgrave stated
his case with his habitual moderation; but he somehow failed to
touch the kernel of the difficulty. He reaffirmed his belief in the
course originally proposed by the Dail— that of preventing by Stand-
ing Order the introduction of Bills for divorce, ignoring the fact that
the ruling of the Chairman of the Senate had rendered such a course
impossible. He had two objections to the Senate’s proposal. One was
that it did make provision for divorce Bills, and to that extent im-
plied that such Bills might be dealt with and relief granted. This
objection was theoretical rather than practical, since it was co mm on
ground that no such Bill had the slightest chance of receiving a First
Reading even in one House, let alone in both. His second objection,
which he said was more serious, was that, if the Senate method were
adopted, it would involve the discussion by Parliament ‘of the par-
ticular facts of each individual case, with all its unsavour}' details’.
In making this objection he can hardly have adverted to the fact that
in the Senate no debate was allowed on the First Reading of a Bill;
and that, in the Dail, the Standing Orders enabled the Speaker to put
the question after hearing a short explanatory statement from the
member introducing the Bill and another from a member opposed to
it. In the course of his speech, Mr. Cosgrave foreshadowed the intro-
duction of legislation to confer upon the courts, when granting
decrees of divorce a mensa et thoro, power to make provision for the
children of the marriage and to vary settlements made on the mar-
riage. The only other speaker on the motion was Deputy Johnson.
It W'as carried without a division, and the appropriate message w r as
sent to the Senate. 1

The final episode in the parliamentary history of this unhappy affair
took place in the Senate on .the 7th July 1925, w'hen the Senate Resolu-
tion to w'hich the Dail had objected w'as formally rescinded, on the
motion of Senator John O’Neill. In strictness, the step w'as unneces-
sary, since the Resolution had already been rendered inoperative by
the non-concurrence of the Dail; just as the Dail Resolution had
been rendered inoperative by Lord Glenavy’s ruling that a motion
for a parallel resolution could not be proposed in the Senate. After
1 Dail Debates, xii, 1563-72.

170 THE DIVORCE CONTROVERSY

the formal recission had been effected, Lord Glenavy referred to the

matter in words which are worth quoting :

‘If in the interval between now and the time we meet again [i.e, the
following November] any Senator can bring forward any proposal
or suggestion that will provide an honourable way out of the impasse,
no one will be better pleased than I will. When I was first confronted
with the question in March last, I ransacked the Constitution and the
Standing Orders, and I came to a conclusion from which I have never
wavered and which has never been challenged : that, having regard to
my oath as a Senator and having regard to the Constitution, it was
impossible that this matter could be disposed of except in one or
other of two ways : either to let it alone, in which case I think we all
agree it would have died a natural death long before now, and Divorce
Bills a vinculo would have disappeared for ever from the Free State;

or to bring in a short Act of Parliament, which has not been done

If any Senator could succeed where I failed, and find an alternative
course, no one would be better pleased than I would be.’ 1

There was, in fact, no via media, and the position remained as it
was until the enactment of the Constitution of 1937, which provides
(Article 41) that ‘no law shall be enacted providing for the grant of a
dissolution of marriage.’ Divorce was not formally prohibited, and
any person domiciled in the Irish Free State possessed the theoretical
right, at common law, to petition Parliament by means of a Private
Bill for divorce a vinculo matrimonii. No person did so, however, in
view of the certainty that such a Bill would be rejected. The three
divorce Bills which had been the immediate cause of the controversy
were withdrawn by the promoters, and, in Lord Glenavy’s phrase,'
divorce died a natural death. The projected legislation referred to by
Mr. Cosgrave was never introduced, and the Irish matrimonial
courts, when granting a decree of divorce a mensa et thoro , still lack
the power to award damages against a co-respondent, to vary the
trusts of a settlement made on the marriage, and to deal with the
custody of the children of the marriage.

It remains to refer briefly to the aftermath in connection with the
Triennial Election, which took place in September 1925, shortly after
the events recorded had taken place. A campaign of vilification was
begun against the Senate which, in view of the honest efforts made to
solve this difficult problem, seems hard to understand. That Senator
Yeats’s deplorable speech should evoke popular indignation was only
to be expected ; but the matter went much further than that. Senator
1 Senate Debates, v, 933-8.

EFFECT ON TRIENNIAL ELECTION 171

Douglas’s position has been made amply clear; but his motion was
characterized by responsible men, in journals with a considerable
circulation, as ‘an insidious move in the divorce game’, and he him-
self was described as a man ‘whose name must always be promi-
nently associated with the artful attempt to introduce divorce’. And
much more to the same effect. Senators Foran and O’Farrell, two
Catholic members of the Labour Party who had voted for the motion,
were represented as having voted for divorce. In regard to the Sena-
tors whose term of office was expiring and who offered themselves
for re-election, a black list was published, on which appeared the
names of these two Senators and also the names of five ‘defaulters’,
who had been present at the sitting at which the motion was passed
but had not taken part in the division. At the same time, the outgoing
Senators who had voted against the motion were specially commended
to the electors.

In view of the unusual nature of the election (which has already
been dealt with in Chapter VIII), it is difficult to say what effect this
campaign had on the fortunes of the candidates. Messrs. Foran and
O’Farrell, in regard to whom the public had been told that ‘the
Catholic’s duty is plain’, easily secured re-election. Of the eight retir-
ing Senators who voted against Senator Douglas’s motion, no less
than five lost their seats. The five ‘defaulters’ fared worst of all, for
of these only one was re-elected, and he was near the bottom of the
list of successful candidates.

PART m

THE SECOND TRIENNIAL PERIOD
6th DECEMBER 1925 TO 5th DECEMBER 1928

The ship is anchored safe and sound , its voyage closed and done;
From fearful trip the victor ship comes in with object won:

Exult, O shores, and ring, O bells!

But I, with mournful tread.

Walk the deck my Captain lies.

Fallen cold and dead.

Walt Whitman, On the Assassination of President Lincoln.

You malign our senators for that
They are not such as you.

Shakespeare, Coriolanus \ I, i, 119 .

CHAPTER XI

POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS, 1925-7

Boundary provisions of the Treaty — The Boundary Commission —
The Morning Post forecast — Crisis precipitated — Resignation of Dr.
MacNeill — Tripartite agreement signed in London — Its provisions —
The Council of Ireland — Mr. Cosgrove's attitude — Fruitful personal
contact between leaders of North and South — A hopeful augury unful-
filled — Mr. De Valera's views — Political groupings — Elements of im-
permanence — Formation of Claim tireann — Dissensions between Minis-
ters on tariff issue — Captain Redmond founds the National League —
The Irish Republican Army repudiates the Republican Government —
Mr. De Valera's proposal to Sinn Fiin — His attitude to the parliamen-
tary Oath — Sinn Fein votes against his policy — Formation of Fianna
Fail— Legislative activity — The Government's external policy — Diplo-
matic status — The League of Nations — The Imperial Conference of
1926 — Outrages by the Irish Republican Army — Public Safety Bill —
Kevin O' Higgins and the licensed trade — The general election cam-
paign — Political parties — The proposals of the Irish Republican Army
— The parties of the Right — Issues before the electors — The parlia-
mentary Oath — Ambiguous attitude of Fianna Fail — Result of the
general election of June 1927 — Mr. De Valera's legal opinion on the
Oath — Fianna Fail members attempt to take their seats — Mr. De
Valera's pledge not to take the Oath — Mr. Cosgrave on the sanctity of
international agreements — The new Administration — Assassination of
Kevin O' Higgins.

Th e Second Triennial Period of the Senate opened in the midst of a
political crisis of the first magnitude. The demarcation of the boun-
dary between the Irish Free State and the six counties of Northern
Ireland, which had been in abeyance for three years, had at last come
sharply to an issue. The Treaty of 1921 was so framed as to apply to

175

176 POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS, 1925-7

the whole of Ireland, but under Article 12 of that instrument it was
provided that ‘the powers of the Parliament and Government of the
Irish Free State shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland’ if an
Address to that effect was presented to His Majesty by both Houses
of the Parliament of Northern Ireland within one month of the pass-
ing of the (British) Act of Parliament for the ratification of the Treaty.
In such a case, a commission of three persons, consisting of an ap-
pointee of each of the two Irish governments and a chairman to be
appointed by the British Government, was to be set up to ‘determine
in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, so far as may be
compatible with economic and geographic conditions, the boundaries
between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland * . .

The British Act entitled the Constitution of the Irish Free State
(Saorstdt fiireann) Act, 1922, was signed by the King on the 5th
December 1922 and came into force on the following day. On the
7th December an address in the sense of Article 12 was duly presented
to His Majesty by the Belfast Parliament, and the boundary provi-
sions of the Treaty thus came into operation. But the Government of
Northern Ireland refused to appoint a representative to the Commis-
sion, and matters hung fire until, by an Agreement dated the 4th
August 1924 and signed by Mr. Cosgrave and Mr. Ramsay Mac-
Donald, the Treaty was amended to permit of the British Govern-
ment appointing a representative for Northern Ireland. This Agree-
ment was duly ratified by the Parliaments at Westminster and Dublin,
and the Boundary Commission was set up. The chairman, appointed
by the British Government, was Mr. Justice Feetham, of South Africa ;
the representative of Northern Ireland, also appointed by the British
Government, was Mr. J. R. Fisher, a prominent Orangeman and a
former editor of the Northern Whig ; and the representative appointed
by the Irish Free State Government was Dr, John MacNeill, an
Ulsterman, the distinguished historian and Irish scholar, who was
Minister for Education in that government.

During the spring and early summer of 1925 the Commission took
evidence on the spot, but no clue was forthcoming as to the inter-
pretation which it proposed to place upon its terms of reference, and
for months there was complete silence. This was broken oh the 7th
November 1925 by the publication in the Morning Post of a detailed
forecast of the Commission’s findings, according to which the new
boundary line was to be a mere minor rectification of the existing one,
and an important strip of Irish Free State territory in County
Donegal was to be transferred to Northern Ireland. This forecast

THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION 177

was regarded by the general public as being substantially correct, and
Mr. Cosgravc’s Administration found itself facing perhaps the worst
crisis of its career. Dr. MacNeil! resigned from the Commission on
the 21st November, on the ground that there was no likelihood that
the work of the Commission would result in a report based upon the
terms of reference, and that the award would be one which he could
not defend. There was a feeling, however, that he ought to have
broken sooner with his fellow Commissioners, and three days later
he resigned his scat on the Executive Council.

It seems clear now that one of two things had happened : either the
British signatories of the Treaty had deliberately tricked the Irish by
offering them what Lord Birkenhead, who was one of the parties to
it, later described as ‘a certain consideration for their signatures’ 1 in
the shape of a boundary commission which they intended should be
nugatory; or, more probably, the British Government had altered its
position (as it had done in 1914) in face of the intransigence of the
Orange minority of north-cast Ulster — an intransigence which had
been deepened by the circumstances of the Civil War and by Mr. De
Valera’s threats that the Ulster Unionists ‘should be coerced’. The
only satisfactory method by which the Commission could have ful-
filled its terms of reference would have been first to ascertain the
wishes of the inhabitants on the border by means of a plebiscite, and
then to determine how far these wishes could be given effect to, due
regard being paid to economic and geographic conditions. But the
holding of a plebiscite would have required special legislation to be
introduced by the British Government and passed by the Imperial
Parliament, and no such legislation was forthcoming, for the very
good reason that, whatever the unit of the plebiscite, very large areas
of Northern Ireland would have voted for inclusion in the Irish Free
State and there were no valid economic or geographic conditions
which could fairly have precluded their transfer. If the county were
the unit, two of the six counties (Tyrone and Fermanagh) would have
so voted by large majorities ; and if a smaller unit had been taken,
such as the Poor Law area or the parish, there would also have been
portions of two of the remaining four counties (Down and Armagh).

Four days after the publication of the forecast in the Morning Post,
questions were asked in the Driil, to which, in the circumstances, no
very reassuring answer could be given by the- Government; 2 and
on the following day in the Senate the matter was raised on the

1 Life of Lord Birkenhead, by his son, vol. ii (1935), p. 238.

2 Datt Debates, xiii, 113, 114.

178 POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS, 1925-7

adjournment by Senator MacLoughlin of Donegal, who described
the boundary clause as the corner-stone of the Treaty, ‘inserted
specifically to ensure the application of the principles of self-
determination and non-coercion to that section of the majority
of the Irish people residing in the Six Counties’. 1 On the other side of
the border, Sir James Craig, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland,
stated that he would no more hesitate than he did in 1914 ‘to fight
in the open against our enemies who would take away the loved soil
of Ulster from any of the loyalists who would want to remain there’ ;
and another member of the Northern Parliament boasted that ‘if
certain things happen ... the Prime Minister and the members of the
Government will hand in their resignations and take the field’. 2

The findings of the Boundary Commission were not invalidated by
the resignation of the Irish Free State member, and once its decision
was promulgated the new boundary would be binding on all parties.
In such a tense atmosphere rapid action was necessary if bloodshed
was to be avoided. The leaders met in London, and on the 3rd
December 1925 a tripartite Agreement was signed, amending and
supplementing the Treaty of 1921. The signatories to this Agreement
were: for the British Government, the Prime Minister (Mr. Stanley
Baldwin) and four members of his Cabinet ; for the Irish Free State
Government, the President of the Executive Council (Mr. Cosgrave),
the Vice-President (Mr. O’Higgins), and the Minister for Finance
(Mr. Blythe) ; for the Government of Northern Ireland, the Prime
Minister (Sir James Craig) and the Secretary to the Cabinet (Mr.
C. H. Blackmore). The Agreement recited that the three governments
were ‘resolved mutually to aid one another in a spirit of neighbourly
comradeship’, and its main provisions were (1) the boundary to re-
main unaltered; (2) the Irish Free State to be released from any
liability under Article 5 of the Treaty for its share of the Public Debt
of the United Kingdom and for the payment of war pensions ; (3) the
powers of the Council of Ireland in relation to Northern Ireland under
the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to be transferred to the
Government of Northern Ireland, and that ‘the Governments of the
Irish Free State and of Northern Ireland shall meet together as and
when necessary for the purpose of considering matters of common
interest arising out of or connected with the exercise and administra-
tion of the said powers

This third provision requires some explanation. Under the Act of
1920 a Council of Ireland was established, consisting of an equal

1 Senate Debates , v, 955-60. a Belfast News-Letter, 16 November .1925.

THE TWO CABINETS AGREE TO MEET 179

number of representatives from the Free State (then ‘Southern
Ireland’) and Northern Ireland, with powers to deal with certain
common services, including railways and fisheries. Such a council
would have helped to destroy the psychological barriers to Irish
unity, and so it contained the germ of ultimate union. Under Article
14 of the Treaty of 1921 the Parliament and Government of the Irish
Free State retained these powers in relation to Northern Ireland;
that is to say, the Free State had a 50 per cent representation in
Northern Ireland so far as the services in question were concerned,
but Northern Ireland had no such representation as regards the Free
State, to which the powers of the Council of Ireland did not apply.
In 1922, owing to the Civil War and the circumstances of the time,
the Free State Government agreed to postpone the operation of these
provisions for five years, but in 1927 they would have come into
effect. By transferring these powers to the Government of Northern
Ireland, the new Agreement put an end to the Council of Ireland, and
to that extent favoured the Northern Government. This was more
than counterbalanced, however, by the arrangement that the two
governments should meet for consultation from time to time ; for an
agreement to meet, freely entered into, was of much greater value
than a cold power contained in a statute. Mr. Baldwin informed the
House of Commons that these words were inserted not only with the
’ consent of Mr. Cosgrave and Sir James Craig, but at their desire. 1
And Mr. Cosgrave was very sanguine that good results would follow.

‘We have arranged that for the purpose of dealing with certain
matters of common concern the two Cabinets should meet together.
These meetings must inevitably tend to remove prejudices and allay
. anxieties and to promote better understanding. Every step in this
direction between North and South will react, through the develop-
ment of a better spirit, in a favourable manner upon the position of
the Nationalists in the North, and the Nationalists of the Six Counties
can assist in this development by becoming a connecting link instead
of a wall of partition between Dublin and Belfast. ...

'On the Council, half the representatives would have been drawn
from the Free State, and Northern Ireland could not have looked on
its operation as anything but irritating interference. No real unifica-
tion, even of the services under its control, could have been achieved
in this way. We made the arrangement contained in the Agreement
with the intention, which actuated all parties, of removing every out-
standing cause of difference, in order to allow for the development, in
1 House of Commons Debates, clxxxix, 319.

180 POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS, 1925-7
future, of the best relations. In abandoning the Council of Ireland, the
Free State will lose nothing. It will gain good will.’ 1

If ever we are to learn wisdom for the future, we shall do well to
pause here and consider the events of these days. On the 27th
November 1925 the relationship between the two Irish governments,
North and South, was undoubtedly one of enormous strain. One
week later the leaders met across a table in London, and by that
personal contact the atmosphere was miraculously changed to one
not merely of mutual respect but of cordiality, informed by the com-
mon desire to co-operate for the good of Ireland in a spirit of neigh-
bourliness and goodwill. Unhappily for their common country, Mr.
Cosgrave and Sir James Craig never saw each other again, nor was
this hopeful augury followed up by a single joint meeting of their
Cabinets. They did not hold apart on any punctilio, and probably the
dead weight of extremism on both sides, of Orangism in the North
and of Republicanism in the South, made them averse from a policy
of conciliation which would have been fruitful for the country but
which might have been politically fatal to both.

The Boundary Agreement was duly given the force of law by cor-
responding Acts passed at Dublin and Westminster. Taken as a
whole, it was a grave disappointment to Irish Nationalists, and more
particularly to those in Northern Ireland who had cherished just
expectations of being included in the area of the Irish Free State. But
any boundary in Ireland is an evil thing, and the greater the area of
the Free State the less chance there would be of achieving unity with
the remainder, since the proportion of uncompromising Unionists in
Northern Ireland would be much greater. Politics is the science of the
second best, and Mr. Cosgrave’s Government secured the best terms
possible short of tearing up the Treaty, which was the only alternative
propounded by his opponents. The abolition of the Free State’s
financial obligations under Article 5 of the Treaty, in regard to the
Public Debt of the United Kingdom, was a substantial achievement ;
for this unascertained and unliquidated commitment had told heavily
against the credit of the State and might have proved a crippling
burden in the future.

Mr. De Valera was still President of a Republic claiming jurisdic-
tion over the whole of Ireland, and his attitude both before and after
the settlement was directed towards inflaming public opinion a gains t
the Treaty. In a statement issued on the 24th November 1925, when
t e crisis was at its height, he referred to the financial provisions of
1 Dail Debates , xiii, 1307, 1313.

MR. DE VALERA ON THE AGREEMENT 181

Article 5 : ‘If there are any people left who still believe in the Treaty
policy and the professions of those who carried it, they will be finally
disillusioned when that other Commission provided for in the
Treaty — the Financial Commission — is set up and comes to deliver
its award. As a warning in advance, I inform all these that the demand
of the British at the time of the negotiations was for a yearly sum of
over nineteen million pounds.’ 1 Less than a fortnight later (6th
December 1925), after the Boundary Agreement had been signed and
the Irish liability under Article 5 had been completely wiped out, he
told a public meeting in Dublin : ‘The papers were full of the glorious
victory and the generosity of the British, just as they were full of
similar stories about the original Treaty. Ireland had gained by the
Treaty of last week, but the gain lay solely in being relieved from the
possibility of being cheated further. . . . [Ireland’s counter-claim]
would, at the time of the Treaty, be something like three thousand
millions.’ 2 As Goldsmith said of Johnson, ‘when his pistol misses fire
he knocks you down with the butt end of it’.

The Boundary Settlement was one of the factors in the disintegra-
tion of political groups and the formation of new ones, which were
characteristics of the period covered by this chapter. Before we review
these changes, it is desirable to state briefly the position at the end of
1925. In a complete Dail of 153 members, there were 109 who had
accepted the Treaty and had taken the Oath and their seats ; the re-
maining forty-four, under the leadership of Mr. De Valera, were
members of the Sinn Fdin Party, who had not accepted the Treaty
and who regarded the Republic declared in 1919 as still established.
The principal party in the Dail was Cumann na nGaedheal (League of
Gaels), consisting of sixty-three members led by Mr. Cosgrave. This
was the Government party, and most of its leaders and many of the
jank and file had taken a prominent part in the Anglo-Irish struggle;
but other elements, such as fanners, professional and business men,
were well represented in it, and it had the more or less tacit support
of the Catholic Church, without which it could not have hoped to
carry the Boundary Settlement. When this party was being formed in
the spring of 1923 it appears to have been the object of the leaders to
found an organization without definite policy or class interest, and
Mr. Cosgrave urged the first delegate convention to bring into the
party all the best elements of the country, irrespective of class or
creed. 3 These highly unusual views must, of course, be read in the

1 Irish Times, 25 November 1925. 2 Ibid., 7 December 1925.

3 Freeman's Journal, 28 April 1923.

182 POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS, 1925-7

light of the circumstances of the time. If there had been no anti-
Treaty party and no Civil War, the party politics of the country
would have had a chance to develop along normal lines. But it was
necessary to marshal the pro-Treaty forces so far as possible under
one banner, and so the Cosgrave party embraced men of all shades of
opinion, those who were satisfied with Commonwealth status and
those who wished to use the Treaty as a stepping-stone to a republic,
protectionists and free-traders, and so on. It thus contained within
itself the seeds of its own disruption, and that disruption might be
expected to manifest itself as soon as, if not before, the Treaty posi-
tion had become stabilized.

The only two other organized parties, the Farmers’ Party and the
Labour Party, had only fifteen members each, and neither could ever
hope to form an alternative administration. The Farmers’ Party,
which was sponsored by the Irish Farmers’ Union, was led by the
late D. J. Gorey, and was representative only of the larger farmers.
It was by no means united on the question of protection versus free
trade, and it did not accept the Government Whip, though it in
general supported the Government against Labour, which, under
Mr. Thomas Johnson, formed the official Opposition. In a non-
industrial country of peasant proprietors. Labour could never hope
to do more than secure the balance of power as between two major
parties. The remaining sixteen members were Independents of various
types : three members for Dublin University, a few former Nationa-
lists of the old school like Captain Redmond (the son of John Red-
mond), and some business men and others of the ex-Unionist type
from Cork, Dublin, and the three Ulster counties.

This, then, was substantially the position at the end of 1925, and
we can see now that it contained elements that make for imperma-
nence. What was required for political stability was that the Govern-
ment party should be homogeneous, having a clear-cut policy, to
which all its members adhered, over the whole range of governmental
activity ; and that a strong Opposition should arise, also with a well-
defined but different policy (albeit one which agreed on fundamentals),
and sufficiently numerous to form an alternative administration. In
this way the attention of the electorate would be diverted from barren
and sterile controversy about the Treaty into more profitable and
educative channels. Of course, conditions such as these can hardly be
created artificially; they arise either naturally or not at all. But if
no such change came over the Irish scene the result was easily pre-

icta e. There is no gratitude in politics, and as soon as prosperity

FORMATION OF CLANN filREANN 183
and stability returned Mr. Cosgrave would be put out of office.
The man in the street would vote against him, much on the same
principle as the Athenian citizen who voted for the ostracism of
Aristeides, ‘because he was tired of hearing him called “the just”. In
such a case, the only alternative would be Mr. De Valera, who, with
a party already nearly as large as Mr. Cosgrave’s, remained outside
the Ddil; and this process would be expedited if Mr. De Valera were
astute enough to make a clean break with methods of violence, to
drop the Republic without formally abandoning it, to put forward an
attractive internal programme, and, above all, to allay the fears enter-
tained by the Catholic Church of all revolutionary movements. Once
returned to power, he could claim that the people had at last undone
the great wrong they had committed when they rejected him and his
policy in 1922.

There was a secession from the Cosgrave party as a result of the
Boundary Settlement. Professor Magennis, a distinguished Professor
of Metaphysics who sat for the National University, broke away and
formed a new party called Clann fiireann (the Children of Ireland).
He was able to recruit only two other members of the Dail and one
member of the Senate (Colonel Moore), but to some extent he ob-
tained support from the earlier National Party of nine members, who
had seceded in October 1924 and who had all been defeated at the
polls when they sought re-election. Under capable leadership and
with a well-considered policy, Clann fiireann might well have ap-
pealed to moderate Republicans and supporters of Labour. But
Professor Magennis’s eminence in other fields did not extend to
politics. He attacked the Government over the boundary, the Treaty
Oath, and numerous other matters, but his own programme was
nebulous, and it never at any time seemed likely that Clann fiireann
would be a numerous family.

Another cleavage arose over the question of protection, but in this
case it did not lead to the formation of a new party. Two of the
‘Extern’ Ministers, who were not members of the Executive Council,
held opposing views on the subject of tariffs. The Minister for Agri-
culture (Mr. Patrick Hogan) was a free-trader, while the Minister for
Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. J. J. Walsh) was a strong protectionist.
The Government as a whole regarded agriculture as the economic
mainstay of the country but favoured a cautious policy of selective
tariffs, and, by the Tariff Commission Act, passed in 1926, a per-
manent commission was set up to examine all claims for tariffs
and to advise the Government after a thorough sifting of the evi-

184 POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS, 1925-7.
deuce for and against. This was a sound method, but it had the
defect that it was necessarily slow in operation. The spectacle of
two Ministers perpetually disagreeing in public on a fundamental
issue seems to have decided the Government against the system of
‘Extern’ Ministers, and to deal with the matter they introduced
legislation which is dealt with in detail in the chapter which follows.
The differences between Mr. Walsh and his colleagues grew wider,
and he left the Dail for business in the autumn of 1927.

In September 1926 Captain William Redmond launched a new
party, the National League, in his constituency of Waterford—
always a Redmondite stronghold. This was an attempt on his part to
resuscitate the old Nationalist Parliamentary Party, which had been led
by his father and which came to grief in 1 9 1 8. Wisely led, such a move-
ment would doubtless have attracted support from many people of
middle age or over, whose loyalty to the Redmond name and to the
Home Rule tradition was still strong ; and a policy of full and frank
co-operation with Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the spirit of
the Boundary Agreement would have commended itself to large
numbers. But Captain Redmond dissipated his energies in stentorian
attacks on the Government without having any definite programme
of his own, except to propose that Messrs. Cosgrave and De Valera
should retire with their respective followers and leave the govern-
ment of the country to men who had taken no part in the Civil War.
In the circumstances, this proposal was a mere chimaera, and the
National League seemed hardly more likely to thrive than did Clann
Eireann.

Hence the various activities of Professor Magennis, Mr. J. J.
Walsh, and Captain Redmond held out no hope to those who were
looking within the D&il for a new alignment of parties on rational
lines. We must now see what had been happening meanwhile to Mr.
De Valera and his Republicans outside the DAil. It will be recalled
that, on the 25th October 1922, Mr. De Valera was appointed ‘Presi-
. ^ent of the Republic’ and that the ‘Government’ of which he was
the head made itself responsible, through its ‘Department of De-
fence’, for the control of the Irregular forces known as the Irish
Republican Army ; that, on the 24th May 1923, he issued a proclama-
tion to these forces, which was in effect a cease fire order, stating that
military victory must be allowed to rest for the moment with those
who have destroyed the Republic’ : and that on the following 22nd
July he made a statement to the Associated Press that it was ‘not
he intention of the Republican Government or the- Army Executive

MR. DE VALERA’S POSITION IN 1925 1S3

to renew the war’. Mr. De Valera was arrested at Ennis on the 15th
August 1923 and released on the 16th July 1924. The Republic was
still in being, he was President of it, and during his internment the
duties of the office were discharged by the Vice-President, Mr.
Patrick Ruttledge. Since the area of the Republic was the whole of
Ireland, the activities of the Irish Republican Army extended to
Northern Ireland, a Belfast battalion being in existence.

Throughout 1924 and most of 1925 the ‘army’ remained, at least
nominally, under the control of the ‘Government’, the ‘Minister for
Defence’ being Mr. Sedn Lemass and the ‘ Chief of Staff’ Mr. Frank
Aiken. How far this control was effectively exercised it is, of course,
impossible to say; but it became more and more shadowy, and at an
Irish Republican Army Convention held on the 14th November 1925
the organization was completely altered. ‘The Army withdrew its
allegiance from the Government (the Government meant Mr. De
Valera and his confreres), and an Army Council with supreme
authority and dictatorial powers was set up. At this stage, therefore,
the Irregular army which had carried on the Civil War under Mr.
De Valera’s direction, and had remained nominally under his direc-
tion up to the end of 1925, now cut itself adrift completely from all
control of anybody who pretended to represent politically any sec-
tion of the electorate.’ 1

Mr. De Valera’s position at this date may therefore be summarized
as follows : he was President of a notional Republic which had twice
been rejected by the people; the army of the Republic had been
decisively defeated, and finally it had repudiated him. In these cir-
cumstances he did not take long to make up his mind as to the best
course for him to follow. He could not continue bombinans in vacuo ;
so he would put the Republic in cold storage, and concentrate on the
abolition of the Oath. On this basis, in the absence in the Ddil of
any possible alternative government to Mr. Cosgrave’s, his ultimate
return to power would be a virtual certainty. Accordingly, at a meet-
ing of the General Council of Sinn Fein (the Republican Organiza-
tion) heldin Dublin on the 13th January 1926, the matter was brought
forward for discussion. In the absence of agreement, it was decided
to call a general meeting of the organization for the 9th March to
decide the question at issue. This, according to a communication
given to the Press by Mr. De Valera, was as follows : ‘Whether with
a view to massing the people of Ireland against the oath of allegiance,

1 Statement by Mr. Cosgrave in the Ddil, 26 July 1927 (Ddil Debates, xx,
830).

186 POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS, 1925-7
which is a national humiliation and a barrier to unified national
action, it could be promised officially on behalf of the organization
at any time that if the oath were removed the Republican members
would sit with the other representatives of the people in the Free
State assembly, regarding that assembly frankly as a non-sovereign,
subordinate, twenty-six county institution, but one which in fact was
in a position to control the lives of a large section of our people.’ 1
Why the Irish Free State Parliament was not sovereign, and to what
it was subordinate— whether to the Irish Republic or to the Imperial
Parliament— was not made clear. Otherwise, the only interest of this
singular conundrum is that it shows the direction in which Mr. De
Valera’s mind was working. It undoubtedly marked an advance on
the attitude which he had maintained twelve months earlier, for on
the 25th January 1925 he had said at Cavan: ‘No matter what the
newspapers said, no decent Republican would ever enter the present
Dail.’ 2

The General Meeting of the Republican Organization was duly
held in Dublin on the 9th March. It had before it a long and wordy
motion proposed by Mr. De Valera, the gist of which is contained in
its opening paragraph: ‘That once the admission oaths of the 26-
County and 6-County Assemblies are removed, it becomes a ques-
tion not of principle but of policy whether or not Republican repre-
sentatives should attend these Assemblies.’ 3 A principle is a funda-
mental truth or a general law as a guide to conduct or action, and it
is not dependent on contingencies. Of its very nature it cannot, like
a method, be altered or abandoned to suit changed circumstances. In
a proclamation dated the 18th November 1922, and signed by Mr.
De Valera as President of the Republic, Mr. Cosgrave and his col-
leagues were characterized as men who had ‘entered into a con-
spiracy with other enemies of the Republic to divide this ancient
nation and dismember its territory and to subvert the Republic
which they were sworn to defend’. 4 The Proclamation contains no
word about ‘admission oaths’, and there can be no question that the
entire illegality of the two Irish parliaments was held by Mr. De
Valera as a basic principle.

In the circumstances, it is not surprising that the motion met with
considerable opposition, and on the 10th March the following
amendment to it was carried by 223 votes to 218 : ‘That it is incom-
patible with the fundamental principles of Sinn F6in to send repre-

3 { n d e P e,} dent t 15 January 1926.
Irish Independent , 12 February 1926.

2 Irish Times, 26 January 1925.
4 Ddil Debates, xliv, 229.

FORMATION OF FIANNA FAIL 187

sentatives into any usurping legislature set up by F.nglish law in
Ireland/ When this amendment was put as a substantive motion,
however, it was rejected by 179 votes to 177. 1 There had been 85
abstentions, and the whole question was left in the air. Mr. De
Valera did not wait for further developments, and on the following
day he resigned, stating that he ‘was compelled to regard the vote as
one against his policy’. 2

On Sunday, 16th May 1926, Mr. De Valera’s new party was for-
mally inaugurated at a public meeting held in the Scala Theatre,
Dublin. He told his audience that ‘he came there as President of
nothing; he came there simply as a private and a Republican. It was
because he had not lost faith in Republicanism he had suggested the
present movement; it was because he felt he would not be doing his
duty to the rank and file of Republicans, or the Irish nation, if he
were to allow Republicanism to be put into the position in which it
would appear to be merely a nominalistic formalism.’ 3

The name chosen for the new party was Fianna Fdil, meaning
Warriors of Fdl. According to legend, the Fianna were a semi-
military, semi-hunting body of men, organized to help the ancient
Kings of Ireland; owing to their excesses, two joint kings combined
against them in the sixth century and practically exterminated them
at the Battle of Gowra, in Meath. Fal is a poetical name for Ireland,
derived from Lia Fdil, the Saxum Fatale or Stone of Destiny which
was supposed to cry aloud under the rightful sovereign when the men
of Ireland were assembled on the Hill of Tara to choose a king; but,
as Dr. Keating says, it has not cried since pagan times, ‘dir do bal-
bhuigheadh brdig-dhealbha an domhain an tan rugadh Criost’ 4 (‘for
the false images of the world were struck dumb when Christ was
bom’). For the title of a modem Republican political party, Mr.
De Valera could hardly have gone further back, or have chosen one
more associated with kingship.

Amid all this political activity, inside and outside the Dail, Mr.
Cosgrave and his colleagues, with their eyes on the future and their
backs turned to the past, steadily pursued their policy of ‘keeping to
the middle of the road ’, erecting a stable structure on the foundations
•already so well laid and getting the best out of the Treaty position.
At home, coinage and currency Acts were passed, and a coinage was
issued which is one of the most artistic in Europe ; land purchase was
expedited ; the Shannon electricity works were nearing completion,

1 Irish Independent, 1 1 March 1926. 3 Ibid., 12 March 1926.

3 Ibid., 17 May 1926. 4 Keating, Foras Feasa, vol. i, p. 101.

188 POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS, 1925-7

an Electricity (Supply) Act was passed to market the current, and
all over the country the steel pylons were going up as symbols of a
new era; the Agricultural Credit Corporation was set up, with a
capital of half a million sterling, to supply loans to farmers; inten-
sive efforts were being made in every direction for the prosperity,
happiness, comfort, and education of the people. Abroad, the Irish
Free State had already, in 1924, appointed a Minister to Washington,
and so was the first member of the Commonwealth to break through
the diplomatic unity of the British Empire. It is right to say that this
step was taken with the cordial co-operation of the British Govern-
ment, and it was followed up by similar action in regard to Paris,
Berlin, and the Vatican. In 1926 the Minister for External Affairs
(Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald) established another precedent by putting
forward his country as a candidate for the Council of the League of
Nations. He was not successful on that occasion, and the Irish Free
State had to wait until 1930, when it succeeded Canada on the
Council; but Mr. Fitzgerald’s application provided an opportunity
for the principal Canadian delegate (Sir George Foster) to vindicate
the right of the Dominions to co-equality with Great Britain and the
other member States. ‘We consider that we have equal rights to re-
presentation on the Council and otherwise with every one of the
fifty-six members of the League of Nations, and we do not propose
to waive that right.’ 1 In the same year (1926) the Government sent
the strongest possible delegation to the Imperial Conference, and it
is now generally accepted that the Report of the Inter-Imperial
Relations Committee of that Conference owed much to the skill
with which Messrs. O’Higgins, Fitzgerald, and the other Irish dele-
gates prepared their case and to the pertinacity with which they pre-
sented it. The Report defined the members of the Commonwealth, in
the words of the now famous Balfour Declaration, as ‘autonomous
communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way
subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or ex-
ternal affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown,
and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of
Nations . Mr. De Valera’s belated decision to recognize the Irish
Free State Parliament as ‘frankly, a non-sovereign, subordinate
twenty-six county institution’ was being made to look more and
more ridiculous.

. ^ S’-peral Action was due in 1927, but the Cosgrave Administra-

on i not go out of its way to court popularity in preparation for
1 Keith, Sovereignty of the British Dominions ( 1929 ), p. 330 .

PARTIES AND POLICIES 189

it. On the night of the 14th November 1926 the Irish Republican
Army conducted a series of attacks on twelve Civic Guard barracks,
as a result of which two unarmed policemen were killed. The
Government immediately met this challenge to its authority by in-
troducing a Public Safety Bill, which was quickly passed by both
Houses. Political capital was made out of this drastic step by the
Labour Opposition, but Mr. Cosgrave said : ‘I would much prefer tp
go before the electorate and say that after my four or five years’
administration it was never necessary to introduce such a measure as
this. I would feel far easier and I would feel far more confident in
making an appeal for my return, but I am not ashamed to stand be-
hind the measure, to defend it and say to the people, “No steps
did we neglect to take to ensure that your lives, your liberties and
your property were secure’’.’ 1 Similar courage was shown by Kevin
O’Higgins, but in a different field. As late as February 1927 he intro-
duced an Intoxicating Liquor Bill, which, as he said himself, was
‘ushered in in the customary journalistic setting of war and rumours
of war’. 2 The licensed trade has always exercised great power in
Irish politics; and though this Bill followed the lines of the unani-
mous Report of an impartial commission, presided over by Mr.
John J. Horgan, the well-known Cork solicitor and publicist, it was
anything but welcome to the publicans, since it proposed to reduce
the number of public-houses and the hours of opening. The Bill
caused more commotion in the country than did Mr. De Valera’s
agitation about the Oath, but Mr. O’Higgins got most of his pro-
posals through intact, though he could not expect much quarter
from the trade at the general election.

By the end of April, the election campaign was in full swing. The
parties and policies were :

1. The Government Party. This went to the country on its record.

2. Fianna Fail The principal plank in this party’s programme was
the removal of the Oath; the Cosgrave party was a British Empire
party which insisted on the retention of the Oath merely for the pur-
pose of keeping Mr. De Valera and his friends out of public life. The
Government was responsible for partition and had bungled the
boundary Settlement. Emigration, unemployment, and the decline
in trade were due to its policy, and these evils could and would be
cured by the imposition of protective tariffs, the withholding of the
Land Annuities paid to Great Britain, and the effecting of economies
in the public services, including a reduction in the size of the Army.

1 Bail Debates, xvii, 157, 158. 2 Ibid., xviii, 522.

190 POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS, 1925-7

3. Labour. This came out with a good constructive programme on

Socialist lines. The Cosgrave party was the party of the wealthy; it
had no real cure for unemployment, and the wages paid on the
Shannon Scheme and elsewhere were scandalously low. On the other
hand, Fianna FAil knew nothing of economic affairs, and its proposal
to issue an employment loan while repudiating the Financial Agree-
ment with Great Britain was ridiculous. A strong Labour Party was
necessary to focus attention on economic issues and to get away from
the dog-fight about the Treaty. '

4. Farmers' Party. The members of this party mostly supported the
Government, but a minority, chiefly of barley-growers, were attracted
by the tariff policy of Fianna F&il. In the end, the Farmers’ Party fell
between two stools.

5. National League. Like everyone else, Captain Redmond
favoured ‘economy’. He strove to rekindle the dead embers of the old
Parliamentary Party, but his appeals were chiefly to sectional in-
terests, such as the liquor trade, the ex-soldiers of the Great War, and
the Town Tenants.

6. Clann Pireann. Professor Magennis’s party stood for the aboli-
tion of the Oath, the revision of the Boundary Settlement, and the
imposition of tariffs. On these issues it was a mere echo of Fianna
F&il, the sole difference being that the latter was not (apparently)
willing to enter the D&il.

7. Sinn Fdin. This party, led by Miss Mary MacSwiney, consisted
of what was left of the Republican Party after Mr. De Valera and his
followers had broken away. It held the Republic established in 1919
to be inviolate and would not in any circumstances recognize the
Parliaments of the Free State and of Northern Ireland, which it re-
garded as usurping legislatures set up by English law.

All except the two principal parties suffered from lack of funds.
Fianna Fail had obtained inadequate financial support in Ireland,
but Mr. De Valera had remedied this defect by going on a mis sion
to the United States, whence he returned with ample supplies for the
election. Negotiations for a modus vivendi went on between the
various groups, but these largely came to nothing. As to the parties
of the Left, Clann Eireann would have welcomed an understanding
with Fianna Fail, but Mr. De Valera had nothing to learn in the way
of political strategy from a professor of metaphysics, whom he pro-

a ly suspected of wishing to catch him bathing for the purpose of
stea ing his clothes. The Irish Republican Army took upon itself the
role of peacemaker between Sinn F6in and Fianna Fdil, and on the

NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN PARTIES 191

20th May it issued a statement of the result of its efforts. It had sug-
gested a three-party delegate conference, on the basis of proposals
which it put forward. All parties were to agree to the restoration of
the Republic; the Treaty, the Boundary Settlement, and all other
agreements with Great Britain were to be repudiated ; all arms were
to be placed under the control of the Irish Republican Army, and the
‘removal’ was to be effected from Dublin and its vicinity of all enemy
forces (that is to say, the Free State Army), after which they were to
be disarmed and demobilized ; ‘to prevent clashing and overlapping’,
a panel of candidates was to be approved by a National Board, and
the board was to select the Cabinet before the election. The Standing
Committee of Sinn F&n agreed to a conference, provided that Fianna
F&il would give a guarantee that they would ‘not enter any foreign-
controlled Parliament as a minority or majority, with or without an
oath or other formal declaration’. The National Executive of Fianna
Fdil decided unanimously that the proposals were not acceptable as
a basis for discussion. 1

With regard to the parties of the Right, union with Captain
Redmond’s National League had been proposed by certain members
of the Fanners’ Party in November 1926, but nothing had come of it.
In the spring of 1927 Mr. Gorey, the leader of the party, and Mr.
M. F. O’Hanlon, its secretary (afterwards Vice-Chairman of the
Senate), discussed fusion with leaders of the Cosgrave party. The
results were satisfactory to both sides, and the Fanners’ Party re-
commended amalgamation to the Farmers’ Union Congress. But the
Congress rejected the scheme, and Messrs. Gorey and O’Hanlon re-
signed from the Farmers’ Party, which faced the election without any
prominent leaders.

So far as the Fianna Fdil Party were concerned, the main issue be-
fore the electors was the abolition of the Oath. A Bill had been intro-
duced in the Ddil for this purpose on the 6th April 1927 by Mr. Daniel
Breen, a daring Irregular leader who had taken the Oath and his seat
in the previous January; and Mr. Cosgrave, in moving the rejection
of the Bill, had made the Government’s position clear on the subject.
The Treaty (of which the Oath was an integral part) had been ap-
proved by an overwhelming majority of the people at the general
elections of June 1922 and August 1923. Since the latter date there had
been twenty-one by-elections, and the result of these had been seven-
teen for the Treaty and four against. ‘We believe in honouring our
bond, we believe in the sanctity of international agreements. . . . Our
1 D&il Debates, xx, 831-6.

192 POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS, 1925-7

honour as the representatives of a nation which has approved of that
Treaty is bound to the carrying out of our part of the transaction.’ 1
This is the exact point made by Mr. De Valera in March 1922 in
explanation of his * wading through blood ’ speeches, when he referred
to ‘the nation’s own pledged word’ as ‘an almost impassable
barrier’. Kevin O’Higgins dealt with the matter more trenchantly
when, referring to Mr. De Valera, he said that ‘the man who did his
damnedest to cut his country’s throat now invited it to commit politi-
cal hara-kiri in order to save his face’. 2

In speech after speech delivered prior to the election Mr. De Valera
used language which left no room for doubt that the question was for
him one of immutable principle, and that he would never enter the
Ddil until the Oath was abolished. It had been suggested from time
to time that the Oath differed from ordinary oaths, and was not
morally binding; but Mr. De Valera dismissed all subtlety of this
kind at the inaugural meeting of Fianna Fdil. .‘As to the theological
aspect of the Oath, it was enough for him that it was called an official
oath and began, “I do solemnly swear”. Why go through mockery
cf that sort if it were not an oath? ’ 3

Towards the close of the campaign the Catholic Dean of Cashel
(Monsignor Ryan) said that a sincere Republican had asked him
whether the Oath could be consistently taken by him in view of the
Oath which he had already taken to the Republic. He had replied that
a man was bound to his wife by the vow he took to her while she was
alive, but when she was dead he was perfectly free to make a vow to
a second wife. 4 But Mr. De Valera revels in this sort of dialectic, and
he answered Monsignor Ryan the very next day. ‘Would the Dean
tell them that they were free to take a vow to a second wife with the
intention of proving unfaithful to her, or with a view of compassing
her death? The people who told them now to take the Oath lightly,
and that it meant nothing, would be just the people to tell them they
had them in the trap, that they had taken an oath and must keep
it. B Nevertheless, in view of the circumstances surrounding Mr. De
Valera’s disruption of Sinn F6in, many people felt that this principle,
however clearly enunciated and with whatever passionate insistence •
reiterated, would never be allowed to stand in his w^y if he found it
politically expedient to disregard it. Colour was given to this belief
by his party’s use of ambiguous posters and newspaper advertise-
1 Dail Debates, xix, 99 2.

Quoted in The Round Table, September 1926 o 810
l Irish Times, 17 May 1926 ’ P '

Irish Independent, 7 June 1927. * Ibid., 8 June 1927.

RESULT OF THE GENERAL ELECTION 193
meats with the slogan ‘Fianna Fail is going in ’ ; and there is no doubt
that many thousands of electors voted for Fianna Fiil in the belief
that they would take their seats, Oath or no Oath.

The general election took place on the 9th June 1927, and the result
was as follows :

Party

Candidates

Members

nominated

elected

Cumann na nGaedheal (Cosgrave)

Fianna Fail (De Valera)

Labour

Independents

Farmers

National League

Sinn F£in

Independent Republicans

Clann Eireann

383 253

This result was, of course, entirely inconclusive. The Government
party had dropped from 57 to 46 (excluding the Chairman of the
D&il) and no longer had a majority in the House, though it was still
the largest party. Professor Magennis and his Clann Eireann had been
wiped out, and so the Children of Ireland had become Orphans of
the Storm ; but none of the other constitutional parties had done at
all well, and their unmeasured attacks on the Government had merely
served Mr. De Valera’s purposes. As they had nothing else in com-
mon with each other, they could not hope to form an alternative
coalition government. The position was one of stalemate, with every-
thing depending on the attitude of Fianna Fail.

The new Parliament assembled on the 23rd June 1927 and the
Dublin morning newspapers of that day contained Mr. De Valera’s
big surprise. He had obtained a legal opinion, dated the 21st June
1927, from three members of the Irish Bar, that there was no autho-
rity in anyone under the Treaty or the Constitution or the Dail
Standing Orders to exclude any member of that House from any part
of the House before the House had been duly constituted and the
Chairman thereof duly elected. Any member might be proposed and
elected as Chairman without taking any oath; and if any member
were excluded the Chairman would not have been validly elected. 1

1 Irish Independent, 23 June 1927.

194 POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS, 1925-7

Fortified by this strange ‘open, sesame’, Mr. De Valera led his entire
party to the Parliament Building on the same afternoon, and what
occurred there was recounted in the Dublin newspapers on the follow-
ing day. They were conducted to a committee room, and Mr. O’Kelly,
the deputy leader of the party, informed the Clerk of the D&il that
they wished to proceed to the Chamber. The Clerk said he had a
‘little formality’ for them to comply with, and, on being asked to
state it, he. read Article 17 of the Constitution, which contains the
text of the Oath and stipulates that it ‘shall be taken and subscribed
by every member of the Oireachtas before taking his seat therein’.
Mr. O’Kelly retorted that he would not take the Oath, but would
proceed to the Chamber, adding that there was nothing in the Con-
stitution to prevent his doing so. Mr. De Valera conducted an ex-
change with the Clerk on similar lines. The Clerk ordered the doors
leading to the Chamber to be locked, and the party withdrew to the
Fianna Fdil headquarters, from which Mr. De Valera addressed the
expectant crowd. ‘They pledged themselves to the people that as long
as they were the representatives of the people they would^ never take
an oath of allegiance to a foreign king. They had been prevented
because they would neither take a false oath nor prove recreant to the
aspirations of the Irish people and renounce their principles.’ 1 But,
if he was still not willing to cross the Rubicon, he had at least arrived
at the water’s edge; and the pressure of his followers behind him on
the bank seemed likely soon to push him across.

Stabant orantes primi transmittere curswn ,

Tendebantque mams ripae ulterioris amore.

While these singular occurrences were taking place, Mr. Cosgrave
was nominated for the Presidency of the Executive Council. He made
it clear that he did not seek office, and would accept it only if the
Opposition parties were unable or unwilling to do so, and then only
if he was to receive sufficient support to carry out his programme.
His position with regard to the Oath was as follows.

As long as the Treaty remains, neither this House nor any other
assembly can remove the obligation which the Treaty imposes upon
elected representatives of subscribing to the Oath prescribed in
Article 4 of the Treaty. The Irish people, through their representa-
tives, can denounce the Treaty. They cannot alter it except by agree-
ment with Great Britain, ratified by legislation on both sides. But
unti it is either denounced or altered the Oath must remain, because

1 Irish Independent, 24 June 1927.

ASSASSINATION OF O’HIGGINS 195

the international obligations of any country override its internal
laws.

‘We have neither sought nor received any mandate for the denun-
ciation of the Treaty, and we do not intend to take any steps in the
matter. Nor have we sought any mandate for its alteration. The
Party which asked for that mandate did not obtain it, notwithstand-
ing the fact that they enshrined their request in a bower of rosy
promises. They dangled before the people visions of bread and work
for all, smaller taxes, no Land Commission annuities, no emigration,
no partition. Now they have taken up the position that unless some
other Party saves their faces in the matter of the difference between
the oath in the Treaty and the oath which their leader himself drafted,
with an annual tribute to His Majesty superimposed, they cannot put
their promises to the test of performance. We have no intention of
imperilling our good relations with Great Britain to secure a dis-
honest saving of faces, or to acquiesce in a national deception.’ 1

There being no other nomination for the Presidency, Mr. Cosgrave
was re-elected, the only opposition to him in the division lobby being
the twenty-two members of the Labour Party. He thereupon obtained
the assent of the D£il to the following Executive Council :

Vice-President, Minister for Justice and Minister for External
Affairs : Kevin O’Higgins
Minister for Finance : Ernest Blythe
Minister for Defence: Desmond Fitzgerald
Minister for Industry and Commerce: Patrick McGilligan
Minister for Education : John M. O’Sullivan
Minister for Lands and Agriculture : Patrick Hogan
Minister for Fisheries : Finian Lynch
Minister for Local Government and Public Health : Richard
Mulcahy

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs : James J. Walsh

On the following Sunday fortnight, the 10th July 1927, as Kevin
O’Higgins was walking alone, unarmed and unguarded, to twelve
o’clock Mass from his home in Blackrock, County Dublin, he was
fired upon by three assassins who had been lying in wait for him in
a motor-car with the engine running. He ran a short distance, but fell
wounded, and they stood over him and fired bullets into his prostrate
body, driving off in the car when their fell work was done. Dr. John
MacNeill, his friend and former colleague in the Government, who
1 Dad Debates, xx, 11-15.

196 POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS, 1925-7

was going to the same Mass, was the first to reach his side, and had
the agonizing experience of finding that the man whom he had
hastened to succour was Kevin O’Higgins. He knelt beside him, and
the first words spoken to him by the stricken man were, ‘I forgive
my murderers.’ His poor wounded body was removed to his'house
three hundred yards away, where his young wife had heard the shots
and feared the worst. He had eight wounds, of which all save one
were sufficient to cause death ; and yet he lingered for nearly five
hours, during most of which time he was perfectly conscious. He
spoke to his grief-stricken friends and colleagues who had gathered
round his death-bed, said to General O’Duffy that they had done
good work and should continue on the same lines, sent his eternal
love to his wife, and went to meet his God with serenity.

Kevin O’Higgins was a steadfast and heroic figure, a statesman of
vision and an enemy of shams and knavery. He had much in common
with Abraham Lincoln, to whom, in his modest, shy way, he liked to
be compared. He had brought his country safely through the horrors
of a civil war and had vindicated the principle that the will of the
people shall prevail. He was scrupulously fair in controversy, scorn-
ing all tricks and subterfuges. But, unlike Lincoln, he was struck
down, not by a madman, but by assassins who saw him for what he
was, the strongest bulwark of the State against its enemies, and who
had decided that for that reason his life was forfeit. If he had lived,
it is certain that the subsequent history of his country would have
been very different. For he had a clear and reconciling conception of
Irish nationality, his plans for the future were well laid and informed
by high purpose, and he had the capacity and the strength of char-
acter to carry them out.

CHAPTER XII

THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SENATE

Contested elections for the Chair and Vice-Chair — Rushing of Bill
to confirm Boundary Agreement — Senators' opinions on the Agreement
— Lord Glenavy's acceptance of the closure — Continued hasty legisla-
tion-ineffective protests — The Ultimate Financial Settlement — Alti-
tude of Minister for Finance to the Senate — Virtual abolition of Extern
Ministers — Effort to abolish Senatorial disqualification for Executive
Council — The question considered in Select Committee — Views of
Kevin O'Higgins — Request for a Joint Committee— Refusal of the
Government — Continued opposition of Kevin O' Higgins— Major Bryan
Cooper states the practice elsewhere — The Senate's reaction to the
refusal — The Juries Bill— Senator Brom and the case for women
jurors — The Intoxicating Liquor Bill — The work of re vision summarized
— Tributes to the dead Vice-President — His funeral.

X he Second Triennial Period did not open with the same degree of
harmony as the first. The memories of the divorce controversy still
lingered, and they had their effect on the elections to the Chair and
the Vice-Chair. Senator T. W. Westropp Bennett was proposed for
the Chairmanship in opposition to Lord Glenavy, but was defeated
by thirty-four votes to eighteen.The same Senator was thereupon pro-
posed for the Vice-Chairmanship in opposition to Senator Douglas,
and this time he was successful by one vote, twenty-six votes being
cast for Senator Bennett and twenty-five for Senator Douglas. The
affair can perhaps best be described as a partial revolt of Catholics,
to some extent against Lord Glenavy and to a greater extent against
Senator Douglas, re-inforced in the case of the latter by the feeling
that to allot both these posts to non-Catholics exceeded what might
reasonably be required in the way of toleration. The vote of thirty-
four for Lord Glenavy was made up of eighteen non-Catholics and

197

198 THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SENATE

sixteen Catholics; and the vote of twenty-five for Senator Douglas
was made up of seventeen non-Catholics and eight Catholics. The
non-Catholic vote was not split, as no noit-Catholic voted for Senator
Bennett in either division. 1

The Government’s treatment of the Senate in the matter of rushing
legislation was exemplified at the very beginning of the period by
what occurred in connection with the Treaty (Confirmation of
Amending Agreement) Bill, 1925. This was the Bill to give effect to
the Boundary Agreement, and it was, of course, of the highest
public interest and importance. It was passed by the Ddil on the
15th December 1925, at ten minutes before midnight. Under the
Standing Orders of the Senate, an interval of three days had to elapse
before that House could take the Second Stage of a Bill received from
the D&il ; but, when the Senate met at 1 1 a.m. on the very next morn-
ing, one of the supporters of the Government proposed, without
notice, a motion to suspend the Standing Orders to enable not only
the Second Stage but all the remaining stages to be taken on that day.
Lord Glenavy accepted the motion and, in spite of a Labour protest,
it was carried.

Though the President, the Vice-President, and the Minister for
Industry and Commerce were all present, none of them expounded
the Bill, and the debate on it was opened by Senator Farren of the
Labour Party, who was opposed to it. The case against the boundary
settlement was capably put by Senators O’Farrell and Colonel
Moore, and, in a maiden speech, by Senator Toal, one of the three
Ulster members. His two colleagues from that province. Senators
MacLoughlin and O’Rourke, supported the Bill however, the latter
stating that, having considered all the arguments put forward for its
rejection, he considered acceptance of the agreement to be the only
statesmanlike policy. Mr. De Valera’s allegation that the country
had been sold was dealt with by speakers of such different view-points
as Senators Douglas, Dowdall, and MacLoughlin. Senator Douglas
said:

Those who were responsible for civil war in the South and for
the many things that happened in this country, in my opinion — and
I challenge anyone to deny it — are the persons most responsible of all
for the continuance of partition since then.’

Senator Dowdall was of the same opinion : ‘When the civil trouble

ro e out here in 1921, partition, so far as it has ever been stereotyped,

1 Senate Debates, vi, 1-17.

SENATORS ON CAUSE OF PARTITION 199
was stereotyped, and the only chance that the then Government had
was taken away from it by the people who now accuse the Govern-
ment and the Oireachtas of selling the country. All I can say is, that
it was better to sell the country than to bum it.’

Senator MacLougblin placed the responsibility directly on the
shoulders of Mr. De Valera : ‘Instead of coming to the rescue of the
Nationalists of the Six Counties, with all the resources of the victo-
rious young manhood of a united Ireland, and with all the friendli-
ness and power of the Coalition Government in England, which had
passed the Treaty and, I might add, in spite of intense provocation
stood by it, he deliberately split the country and plunged it into an
inferno of civil war, in which the houses of Protestants were burned
in the name of the Irish Republic, and in the name of the great
Protestant patriot Wolfe Tone, whose life’s aim was to do away with
sectarianism and unite all Irishmen in a common fold. That was De
Valera’s contribution to a united Ireland. That was his invitation to
the Protestants of the North to join their Southern fellow-countrymen
for the common good of their native land. . . . When I hear people
talking about the betrayal of the Nationalists in the Six Counties and
of the Catholics of the North being sold, I reply that the time they
were betrayed was when De Valera first launched his first thunderbolt
against the Treaty and the time they were sold was when he lit the
torch of civil war in Ireland. And now this architect of their misfor-
tunes is again attempting to exploit the plight of these Nationalists and
use them as pawns in his game to bring about the downfall of the
Free State.’

After the debate on the Second Stage had been in progress only
four hours, the closure was moved by a supporter of the Government ;
and, although only thirteen Senators had spoken, Lord Glenavy ac-
cepted the motion. Such an action as this made many people doubt
the sincerity of his frequent remonstrations with the Government for
rushing legislation. The closure motion and the successive stages of
the Bill were all passed by substantial majorities, and then, again
without notice, a motion was allowed to be moved declaring that the
Bill was necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace
and safety, and that accordingly the provisions of Article 47 of the
Constitution should not apply to it. This Article, it will be recalled,
stipulated for a delay of seven days between the passage of a Bill and
its enactment, to permit of the machinery for a referendum being set
in motion. This declaratory motion was duly passed, amid protests,
although it did not seem likely that the public peace and safety would

200 THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SENATE
be endangered by a mere week’s delay in stabilizing a boundary which
had existed for more than five years. 1

The day after these summary proceedings (17th December 1925)
the Minister for Justice (Mr. O’Higgins) wrote a letter to the Chair-
man of the Senate, referring to the Courts of Justice Bill (which had
been passed by the D&il only the previous night) and giving reasons
why, in his opinion, it was necessary for the Bill to be passed by
both Houses not later than the 10th January. The letter was read to
the House from the Chair, and strong exception was taken to this
method of communicating the Government’s wishes in regard to the
legislative programme. Senator Sir John Keane said : ‘It is not desir-
able that the reading of letters from Ministers, or from anybody else,
should be made a precedent by the Senate. It never happened before,
and in my opinion it would be a dangerous precedent. I know that
Ministers find it inconvenient often to attend here, but I do not think
that inconvenience can in any way be met by our receiving written
communications like this.’ 2

The remedy, of course, lay in the Senate’s own hands ; because,
however inconvenient Ministers might find it to attend the House,
they would have found it still more inconvenient if Senators had re-
fused to expedite Bills in accordance with their wishes, onithe ground
that Ministers had not taken steps to bring such Bills before the
Senate in due time for their proper consideration. This particular Bill
had been before the Dail for more than a month; but the Senate
passed it through all its stages in one day, three days before the latest
date mentioned by Mr. O’Higgins.

One of the consequences of the rushing of Bills was that the Chair-
man was obliged in many cases to waive the rule that amendments for
the Committee Stage should be received before 1 1 a.m. on the pre-
vious day. The result was that amendments often had to be hastily
drafted, the Government experts had not time to examine their
implications, and the Minister in charge of the Bill opposed them as
a measure of precaution : whereas, if time had permitted, he might
have accepted some of them as improvements. Such a bad practice is
liable to spread, and in some instances Senators were themselves at
fault in sending in their amendments late. Such occasions were rare,
however, and it might have been expected that Ministers would be
the last to complain. But on one such occasion (28th April 1926) Mr.

see lenateXSaJes* VU22-242 Wh ' Ch th * foregoing extracts have been quoted,

2 Senate Debates, vi’, 271-4.

RUSHING OF LEGISLATION 201

O’Higgins entered a strong protest in the case of his Enforcement of
Court Orders Bill, though the amendments in question numbered
only five. Senator O’Farrell replied: ‘Bills have come very often in
heaps from the other House to us and we were asked to deal with
them hurriedly, even more important Bills than this. We have per-
haps spoiled die Government in that respect, and if we do make a
mistake they are responsible for the bad example.’ 1

This bad example was continued a few months later, when the
annual rush began before the summer recess. There being no leader
of the House, nor any spokesman for the Government, Lord Glenavy
occupied five columns of the Official Report in detailing the order of
the business (30th June 1926). He classified the Bills which the
Government wished to be passed into law before the adjournment,
and which, he said, had been furnished in a minute received from the
Executive Council. A number of these Bills had not then reached the
Senate. Lord Glenavy further explained the provisional time-table
which he had sketched out, and ‘I can tell the House’, he said, ‘it
will mean hard work if they are to put all this mass of legislation
through this week’. But he made no suggestion that the Senate should
refuse to facilitate the Government and should insist on being given
adequate time for the due consideration and revision of the Bills sub-
mitted to it. He did, however, again refer to the question of the
initiation in the Upper House of Government Bills :

‘I have only to say that I express my regret that the Executive
Council has not seen its way to introduce some of those Bills into this
House. I see no reason why some of those Bills should not have been
introduced into this House weeks ago, and by this they would have
been passed into law. I have thrown out that suggestion already to
the Executive Council, but evidently this House has been divorced,
so far as the Government is concerned, from the initiation of Govern-
ment Bills. That, of course, may be their policy. I think, myself, it
would be more in the interests of, certainly the efficiency of, this
House, and also the dispatch of public business, if many of those not
very contentious Bills were originated and passed in their first stages
here. 1 have nothing more to say in that matter.’ 2

The Government by this time doubtless knew that, however he
might complain, they had really nothing to fear from the Chairman
of the Senate. But any doubts there may have been must have been
removed by an episode which occurred at the end of the year. On the
16th March 1926 Mr. Ernest Blythe, the Minister for Finance, and
i Senate Debates, vii, 28-30. 2 Ibid., vii, 551-6.

202 THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SENATE

Mr. Winston Churchill, the British Secretary of State for the Colonies,
signed the Heads of the Ultimate Financial Settlement between the
two governments. (This is the Agreement which was subsequently
repudiated by Mr. De Valera.) The document was laid on the table
of the Senate on the 19th November 1926, and on the following 15th
December Senator Colonel Moore proposed a motion on the subject,
expressive of the opinion that the settlement was prejudicial to the
financial stability of the country. It is quite certain that the great
majority of Senators did not agree with this view, but an amendment
was offered to the motion by Senator Bennett, the purport of which
was to refer the matter to a Special Committee of the Senate, ‘to con-
sider and report whether such settlement is prejudicial to the financial
stability of the Irish Free State, and will, if carried out, be an excessive
burden on Irish taxpayers ’.

The right of a House of Parliament to set up such a committee can
scarcely be questioned ; and that right is unaffected by the merits or
otherwise of the particular case. If the Senate, in its wisdom or un-
wisdom, decided by a majority that the ultimate financial settlement
was a proper subject for investigation by a Special Committee of the
House, its right to take such action could not be gainsaid. Moreover,
the proceedings of the committee would have been conducted in
private, its report would have had to be submitted to the Senate,
which could accept or reject it, and, in the unlikely event of an ad-
verse report being approved by the Senate, the validity of the Agree-
ment would not have been affected, since it did not require ratifica-
tion by Parliament.

The Minister for Finance, who took part in the debate, adopted an
attitude in regard to the amendment which seems difficult to justify
on any view of the rights and privileges of Parliament. He said: ‘I
would not attend at the Committee if it had been appointed, espe-
cially with the terms of reference which are attached to the setting
up of the Committee, and which aim at repudiation. No papers would
be submitted by the Government and no information would be given
to the Committee. When it became a substantive motion I would
deal with it in that way. ... If such a Committee were appointed I
would not appear before it. I would give no facilities.’ The acceptance
by the Senate of such an attitude would affect any committee that
might afterwards be appointed, with power to send for persons,
papers, and records ; for the precedent might bar the committee and
the House from dealing with a refusal, even if such refusal were im-
pertinent or contumacious. The Senate could, if necessary for the

MOTION RE ; FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT 203

upholding of its privileges, have threatened to suspend all but essen-
tial Bills ; but a mere caveat from the Chair would probably have
sufficed to bring about a change of tone. Lord Glenavy dealt with the
matter as follows:

‘I am veiy sensitive about the position and the dignity of this
House, and I would suggest to the Senate, not touching on the merits
of this particular controversy at all, that they should think very long
before they proceed to set up a Committee under the conditions men-
tioned here to-day, a Committee that will have no powers, a Com-
mittee which the Government will refuse to recognize, and which
will, therefore, not be in a position to extract the information they
want. They will simply report this to us, and leave the position where
it is to-day. I am suggesting to the Senator that he should not put the
House in this very undignified position. If this were a Committee
that had powers of its own and that could investigate these particular
matters, I, for one, would not have intervened at all. They can only
act on information which they can only obtain through Government
channels, and these channels have been closed by the declaration
made by the Minister. I put it to the House whether they are consult-
ing their own dignity in appointing a Special Committee.’

Those in favour of the proposal to set up a committee were not
• convinced by this line of reasoning. A division was demanded, the
voting was equal, and Lord Glenavy gave his casting vote against the
proposal. There had been a surrender to truculence. 1

Early in 1927 an effort was made to end the Senate’s position of
isolation by a removal of the bar which prevented Senators from
being appointed members of the Executive Council. The position at
that time was as follows. Under Article 51 of the Constitution,
membership of the Executive Council was limited to a maximum of
seven, all of whom (Article 52) had to be members of the DHL Under
Article 55, ‘Extern’ Ministers might be appointed by the Representa-
tive of the Crown on the nomination of the Ddil, and these could be
members of either House or of neither; but the total number of
Ministers, of both kinds, was not to exceed twelve. Under Section 7
of the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, the Executive Council
might appoint Parliamentary Secretaries up to the number of seven.
These had to be members of either the Senate or the Dail, and the
total number of persons in receipt of salaries either as Ministers or
as Parliamentary Secretaries at any one time was not to exceed fifteen.
At the beginning of 1927, there were seven members of the Execu-
i Senate Debates, viii, 12-62.

204 THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SENATE

tive Council, four ‘Extern’ Ministers and three Parliamentary Secre-
taries— a total of fourteen. All were members of the D£il, and, as the
Government party numbered less than seventy, one member of the
party in every five held office.

The system of ‘Extern’ Ministers having proved unsatisfactory,
the Government introduced the Constitution (Amendment No. 5)
Bill, 1926, whereby it was proposed to amend Article 51 of the
Constitution by increasing the maximum membership of the Execu-
tive Council from seven to twelve. If the Bill was passed, and if the
President availed himself of it to have an Executive Council of twelve,
no ‘Extern’ Ministers could be appointed, since, under Article 55,
twelve was still an overriding maximum for Ministers of both kinds.
In such a case, the Senate would be deprived of the possibility of
having even an ‘Extern’ Minister, though this was, of course, a
deprivation that was shared in theory by every individual citizen.

At all events, when the Bill came before the Senate (2nd February
1927) this theoretical point was used by Senator P. W. Kenny as a
basis for the plea that Article 51 should be further amended so as to
permit of Senators being members of the Executive Council. As
might be expected, the proposal received general support. Senator
Colonel Moore said :

‘I have felt from the very beginning the great embarrassment of
not having some party leader in this House. As matters stand, no one
knows exactly what a particular Minister wants. There is no one to
decide. Ministers themselves are obliged to leave their other duties
to come to this House and sit here in a very awkward position in order
to give their views occasionally as to what they mean. I do not think
such a course is dignified or is very suitable for Ministers themselves.

‘I think it would be very much better if we had a leader in this
House. The result of not having such a leader is just as I prophesied,
that the Chairman of this Assembly is in two positions whether he
likes it or not. He is in the position of an ordinary Chairman and he
is also a sort of leader of the House, giving advice and doing things
which an ordinary Chairman would not do because there is nobody
else to do them. I do not think it is convenient ; I think it would be
better if the Minister could take his place in this House, as is, done in
the other Dominions and in every country that I know of.’ 1

Senator Sir John Keane made the same point about the Domi-
nions : The fact that the Senate cannot have several members on the
Executive Council, or that the President or Minister for Finance can-
1 Senate Debates , viii, 153.

SENATORS AND MINISTERIAL OFFICE 205

not be a member of the Senate, does not affect the principle. That

should be kept clearly in view I do strongly feel that we should

come into line with our sister Dominions, all of whom, I think, have
the power to choose Ministers from their Senate or Upper House.’ 1

And Senator Douglas was substantially of the same opinion as
Colonel Moore: ‘I think the Senate suffers considerably by not
having either a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary in this House.
I think that the Government ought to look in the future to having
one person who would be in a real sense a representative of the
Government and, consequently, the leader of the House. It is not
satisfactory as it is at present, and I think a good deal of misunder-
standing and difficulty with regard to the stages of Bills are due to
the. fact that there is no authoritative person, as there is in most
Second Chambers, representing the Government of the day. Whether
that Government has a majority in the Senate or not has nothing to
, do with it ; they should have a representative.’ 2

Mr. O’Higgins, who was the Minister in charge of the Bill, did not
reply to any of these arguments, but merely gave the reasons why the
Government wished to extend the permitted maximum membership
of the Executive Council. In these circumstances the Senate, after
giving the Bill a Second Reading, referred it to a Select Committee
for a detailed examination of its implications.

This Select Committee met on the 10th February 1927, and it was
attended by Mr. O’Higgins. The sole question discussed was whether
or not membership of the Executive Council should be open to
Senators. Mr. O’Higgins’s arguments against the proposal were
three. First, he doubted ‘whether it is wise to call into collective res-
ponsibility to the major administration and legislation, and matters
affecting the electors, persons who have never been elected, persons
who are not conscious, and who cannot be conscious, of a feeling of
direct political responsibility to the electors’. Second, in a mixed Exe-
cutive Council, ‘they are not all in the same position. The reaction of
defeat is not the same for all of them, because whereas in the event of
defeat in the D&il some members of the Executive Council would pro-
bably find themselves facing the electorate and battling for their seats,
the Senate members would retire to the Senate, with, perhaps, eight
or ten years of office and with no obligations to face the electorate.’
Third, there was a lack of uniformity in the Senate. ‘Some have been
nominated, some have been co-opted and some elected. That is a
patchwork position.’

J- Senate Debates, viii, 152.

- Ibid., viii, 151.

206 THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SENATE

Lord Glenavy asked, ‘Are not these arguments all applicable, not
only to the British Constitution to-day, but to the Constitutions of
South Africa and Canada?’ and Senator Douglas added, ‘To every
other country except the United States.’ Mr. O’Higgins replied, ‘No
doubt, but we must examine our affairs here.’

In the end, Mr. O’Higgins stated that he ‘would be prepared to ask
the Dail to co-operate in extending the eligibility of members of the
Executive Council to the entire Oireachtas’, but he deprecated the
holding up of his Bill pending a decision on the question. The Select
Committee returned the Bill to the Senate with a unanimous recom-
mendation that the further consideration of the Bill should be post-
poned and that the Dail should be asked to agree to set up a Joint
Committee to consider and report on the question of the eligibility of
Senators for membership of the Executive Council. 1

The Senate adopted the recommendation of the Select Committee
(23rd February 1927), and the appropriate message was sent to the.
Dail, requesting the concurrence of that House in the appointment
of a Joint Committee. Mr. O’Higgins appears to have been nettled
by the fact that the Senate had meantime postponed further con-
sideration of the Bill, and when the Senate message came before the
Dail (2nd March 1927) he met the request for a Joint Committee
with a blank refusal. He stated that he did so on two grounds : first,
because the Government objected to what he called its ‘bargaining
complexion’ and an alleged ‘underlying threat’, and second, on the
merits. His arguments on the merits were the same as those which he
adduced before the Select Committee of the Senate, with the addi-
tional reason that, when the Constitution was being enacted, it was
not the intention that members of the Second Chamber should be
eligible for Ministerial office.

‘The Provisional Parliament enacted this Constitution. Only after
its enactment did the Senate come into existence at all. It came into
existence with certain prescribed functions, functions of revision, of
criticism, of suggestion, and, as its maximum power, the function of
imposing a certain delay to measures of which it disapproved. Now
we are asked to take the view that it is desirable to explore, at any
rate, the possibility that some members of that Assembly so consti-
tuted, constituted for this purpose, to those ends, should be made
suddenly and gratuitously eligible for quite other functions.’ 2

he only other notable contribution to a comparatively short

Committee Debates, vol. i, pp. 279-89.
Dail Debates, xviii, 1167.

ANOMALOUS POSITION OF SENATE 207

debate was that made by Major Biyan Cooper, who spoke on the
other side.

‘There is no doubt whatever that the present position of the Senate
is unique and, I think, anomalous. It is not in the same position as
any other Second Chamber in the world that I know of. Ministers
without portfolio sit in the Canadian Senate. Ministers sit in the
Senate of New Zealand ; the Vice-President of the Executive Council
and the Minister for Home Intelligence sit in the Senate of Australia.
In France the Prime Minister, Monsieur Poincare, is a member of
the Senate. In every Second Chamber in the world, except that of the
United States, where the Executive is entirely divorced from the
Legislature and where members of the Executive are not members of
either House, members are eligible for office, and by the fact that
there are Ministers in those particular Chambers they derive a great
advantage, because they get guidance ... of which the Senate has
very often stood in need. . . . One practical effect of adhering to the
present position and refusing to discuss any change at all will be, in
the end, to exclude men of ability from the Senate. No man of
ability and ambition will be willing to go to the Senate if he is aware
. . . that under no circumstances could a member of the Senate go for
a Ministerial position.’ 1

Such arguments as these, however, carried no weight with Mr.
O’Higgins and the Government, and the motion refusing the Senate’s
request for a Joint Committee was carried without a division.

When the Ddil message of refusal came before the Senate (9th
March 1927) considerable surprise was expressed at Mr. O’Higgins’s
belief that the Senate’s postponement of the Bill had had a ‘bargain-
ing complexion’. The members of the Select Committee disclaimed
any such intention. Senator Kenny, who had been the protagonist,
stated that ‘there was not in the Committee Stage, or in any discus-
sion in this House, any suggestion of a threat to the Ministers or to
the DSil’. Senator Jameson said: ‘The decision we came to was a
unanimous decision to do a certain thing which we thought we had
the approval of the Minister for, and the last thing in our minds was
that we were doing anything to hold out a threat to the Dail. I never
was so astonished as when I read the remarks which the Minister
made in opposing our proposal in the Dail.’

And Senator Douglas also added his testimony: ‘I very much
regret that the Minister for Justice, whom we all respect so much,
should have been misled in that matter. I think his memory must
1 Dail Debates, xviii, 1158 .

208 THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SENATE
have failed him. I do not think that a statement like that will help ,
the good relationship that should exist between the two Houses.’

The sincerity of these utterances is proved by the fact that, in spite
of the curt refusal of the Ddil, it was not suggested in any quarter of
the Senate that the Bill should be held up. 1

On the Committee Stage (7th April 1927), Mr. O’Higgins, who was
always an honourable controversialist, said, apropos of the ‘threat’ :

‘I want to say, if I have done the Senate less than justice, I regret
that very much.’ But the most he would concede was that, if the
Senate passed the Bill, the Government would not oppose the setting
up of a Joint Committee to consider the eligibility of Senators for
membership of the Executive Council; it would not itself propose
such a committee. Of course, in view of the strong views already ex-
pressed by Mr. O’Higgins, and of his personal prestige in the Ddil,
such a concession was entirely useless, even though he promised that
the question of setting up a Joint Committee would be left to a free
vote of the Ddil. The Senate bowed to the inevitable, and passed the
Bill without amendment. 2

This whole episode well exemplifies the general attitude of the
Government and the Ddil towards the Senate at that time and also
conveys some idea of the frigid atmosphere of isolation in which the
functions of the Second Chamber were discharged. It seems useless
unduly to blame Mr. O’Higgins, the Ministry, or the Ddil. As a
result of past history, the country was then, and is still, passing
through an ultra-democratic phase which forbids the concession of
any but minimum powers to the members of an Upper House.

In spite of the manifest handicaps, Senators continued to apply
themselves to their duties conscientiously and with zeal. One Govern-
ment Bill was suspended during this period — the Civil Service Regula-
tion (Amendment) Bill, 1925, sponsored by the Minister for Finance.
This Bill proposed to confer power on the Civil Service Commis-
sioners to restrict admission to examinations held by them to mem-
bers of one sex. Objection was taken to this proposal from all
quarters of the House on the ground that' it was directed against
women, and the Bill was rejected on Second Reading by a large
majority (17th December 1925). 3 It remained in abeyance for the
suspensory period of 270 days prescribed by the Constitution and
reached the Statute Book on the 22nd September 1926.

The feminist question was also the principal subject of controversy
in the case of the Juries Bill, 1927. This was a comprehensive measure

1 Senate Debates, viii, 463-72. 2 Ibid., viii, 748-80. 3 Ibidt> v i, 244-66.

SENATOR BROWN ON WOMEN JURORS 209

of seventy-two sections, codifying the existing law in regard to the
liability for service of jurors, their registration, the preparation of
jurors’ lists and books, and procedure to secure their attendance in
court. Under the law then in force, women were liable to serve on
the same terms as men, but Ireland is a conservative country so far
as women’s rights are concerned, and the law in this respect was
practically a dead letter. Most of the women summoned to serve on
juries were excused for business or domestic reasons, and the few
who were called on the panel were almost always challenged by one
or other of the parties, or by the accused in a criminal case. In view
of these facts, Mr. O’Higgins in his Juries Bill proposed to exclude
women altogether from jury service. The Senate’s opposition to this
proposal was very pronounced, and Senator Brown opened the case
against it on the Second Reading. He characterized the proposed
exclusion as not only unconstitutional but illogical.

‘You have given the franchise to every woman of twenty-one in
this country whether she has the property qualification or not, and
you are denying to a woman, who is bound to have the property
qualification for the purpose, the right or the obligation of serving
on a jury. In my opinion the average woman knows far more about
the question which will come before her when sitting on a jury than
she knows about the political issues involved, say, in the next general
election. ... I am not here to make a case for women jurors that
does not exist. I think up to the present they have, to a large extent,
been a failure, but that is not altogether, or indeed to any great extent,
their own fault. They have never had a chance before. That kind of
job is not one which comes to you by nature, and especially it is not
one which comes to people whose lives have been more or less in
domestic retirement; but, with time, better education, and wider
experience of life, I have no doubt that the average woman will be
just as good a juror as the average man at present.’ 1

The speakers who followed were nearly all on the same side ; and
on the Committee Stage an amendment restoring the liability of
women was proposed in a convincing speech by Senator Sir Edward
Coey Bigger and carried against the Government by a large majority.
Ultimately, a rather amusing compromise was reached whereby
women were placed in a Special Schedule of ‘persons exempted but
entitled to serve on application’, along with doctors, dentists, veteri-
nary surgeons, licensed pilots, and others.

NVhenthc Intoxicating Liquor Bill. 1927, came before the House,

* Senate Debates, viii, 668, 669.

210 THE GOVERNMENT AND. THE SENATE

* <* r *

Senator Farren, of the Labour Party, was not afraid to espouse what -
might be an unpopular cause, and he led the opposition to a proposal
in the Bill that the public-houses should again be allowed to open
on Saint Patrick’s Day. He referred to the struggle which had
taken place between the Senate and the Dail on this question in
1924.

‘We had a real stand-up fight on the question. . . . The Senate on
that occasion decided to insist on St. Patrick’s Day being treated the
same as Christmas Day and Good Friday. The matter went back to
the Ddil, and the Dail disagreed with our amendment. It came back
to the Senate, and, like good men and true. Senators insisted on their
amendment . . . and we carried the day. ... If St. Patrick came to
earth again and saw the manner in which some people drown the
shamrock he would be prepared to drown the people who drown the
shamrock.’ 1

Senator Farren’s amendment was carried against the Government,
and this time it was accepted by the Dail. It is not unlikely that Mr.
O’Higgins, who was in charge of the Bill, was secretly in favour of it;
and this was probably one of the many cases in which the Ministry
avoided the unpopularity of a decision with which they agreed by
allowing the onus to fall upon the Senate. This is, of course, quite a
usual and a perfectly legitimate use of a Second Chamber. ’

The energy with which the Senate discharged its function of revi-
sion over the whole field of legislation is sufficiently indicated by some
specimen figures. Agriculturalists, members of the Labour Party,
bankers, business men, and lawyers all co-operated in improving the
measures submitted to the House. To the Court Officers Bill, twenty-
four amendments were made, and thirty-two to the Agricultural
Credit Bill. In the case of the Electricity (Supply) Bill and the Indus-
trial and Commercial Property Bill — two very complex measures —
the figures were fifty-four and seventy respectively. During this short
period of just over a year and a half, more than sixty non-Money
Bills were passed, of which about one-third were amended. The
number of amendments fell just short of 300, and of this huge total
all except two were agreed to by the Ddil.

Even after the lapse of twelve years it is difficult for anyone who
enjoyed the friendship of Kevin O’Higgins to write without emotion
concerning his death. Two days after the assassination (Tuesday,
12th July 1927) the Senate and Dail met specially at three o’clock in
the afternoon, and in both Houses moving tributes were paid to the
1 Senate Debates, viii, 916, 917.

TRIBUTES..TP KEVIN O’HIGGINS 21 1
• *

dead Vice-President. In the Senate there was practically a full attend-
ance, and Lord Glenavy addressed the House as follows from the
Chair.

‘We meet to-day under the shadow of a great national catastrophe.
We mourn the loss, under cruel and tragic circumstances, of one who
was perhaps the great outstanding Irishman of his day and generation,
a man who in his duties as a Minister of the State, with an unparal-
leled fearlessness and lion-hearted courage acting up to a conscien-
tious sense of duty, left himself without a moment of leisure to devote
himself exclusively to the work of the regeneration of his country. In
these efforts he had succeeded beyond, I think, perhaps even his own
hopes or expectations, and beyond the expectations of most of us. In
the course of his work he had commanded the confidence and gained
the affection of all his colleagues and of all his countrymen. He had
asserted the position of our Free State with a dignity, ability and
efficiency in the councils of the Empire and the councils of Europe,
where his transparent honesty, unselfish patriotism and devotion to
duty had earned him a reputation in a few brief years that few others
in a lifetime have succeeded in gaining. We are each and all of us the
poorer for his death, but, on the other hand, his country is rich, en-
riched by the example he has set each of us of devotion to duty and
of unselfish and loyal work for his country. I do not think there
could be any more noble epitaph placed upon the grave of any one
of us than what he himself recorded in his dying words, when he said,
“We have done good work; continue on the same lines.” That
should be an inspiration to each and all of us, and I am sure that I
was only acting in accordance with the sentiments of Senators in ask-
ing each and every one of you to assemble here to-day, for the pur-
pose of considering how best you could pay your tribute to the
memory of this great man at his funeral obsequies to-morrow.’

The Minister for Finance (Mr. Ernest Blythe) followed Lord
Glenavy in a short speech, in the course of which he said :

‘Other countries have had statesmen whose names were more
widely known throughout the world, but I do not believe that any
nation has ever had a servant who, in purity of purpose or powers of
mind, excelled this man who is now dead in his thirty-fifth year. He
W'as struck down by assassins, not because of anything he had done in
the past, but because of the work they knew' him to be capable of
doing in the future, because he was the strongest pillar of the State.
The best tribute wc can pay to his memory is, solemnly to resolve
that we shall preserve and strengthen the fabric of this State, which

212 THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SENATE

he laboured to build up and for which he died, and that we shall
guard it against all enemies within and without.’

Then, one by one, the spokesmen of the different groups and sec-
tions in the House added their tributes to the dead leader in solemn
language that fitted well the tragic occasion. That from Senator
Jameson was particularly touching. He referred to his first meeting
with Kevin O’Higgins at the time of the negotiations with the
Southern Unionists in London.

‘I happened to be associated with him at the very beginning of the
Irish Free State. With some of my colleagues I met him and discussed
the conditions under which the Free State was to be started. We
formed a great opinion then of Mr. O’Higgins. We saw that his
vision of the future was clear and just. We saw his great statesman-
ship, his great moral bravery, and we recognized above all things that
what he said he would do he would do no matter what it cost when
it came to the doing. I have had the good fortune, because of making
his acquaintance at that time, to become a great friend of his, and I
can speak both as a personal friend and as an ordinary citizen of the
Free State as to the great man we have lost. Since those early days
we who have worked with him to try and establish our country on a
sound political and governmental basis have seen him follow the same
line of conduct that he pursued at that time. He has never flinched.
He has always acted up to his own ideal.’ Mr. Jameson went on to
say that O’Higgins’s ideal was the ordered government of the
country, with security for its citizens. ‘That was Kevin O’Higgins’s
ideal, and it was because it was his ideal, and because he worked for
it, that they killed him. Mr. Blythe said quite truly that they knew the
man they had to deal with, and that they knew how he meant to carry
on the country. The forces of disruption and disorder feared him,
and with good reason. Now, we citizens who are left have to take
care to carry on the record, and wherever the Gnvp.r nm p.nt asks us to
support them in their defence of law and order we should act and
give them every support. I hope when we go to meet Mr. O’Higgins
on the other side of the Great Divide, that we, one and all of us, will
be able to look him fearlessly in the face and say: “We have done
our best to follow the great standard of conduct you set, and we feel
glad and honoured to be in your company once more.” ’

The Vice-Chairman (Senator T. W. Westropp Bennett), adding his
own tribute, formally moved ‘That Seanad Eireann attend the funeral
ceremonies of the late Vice-President, Minister for Justice and
Munster for External Affairs, Deputy Kevin O’Higgins, on Wednes-

FUNERAL OF KEVIN O’HIGGINS 213

day, 13th July 1927.’ The motion was seconded by Senator Brown
and passed in silence, all the members standing.

On the following morning the members of both Houses assembled
in their respective Chambers and marched in processional order to
the church of Saint Andrew, Westland Row, Dublin ; and having
assisted there at a solemn Requiem Mass, presided over by His Grace
the Archbishop of Dublin, they walked in the State funeral proces-
sion to Glasnevin Cemetery, where the body of Kevin O’Higgins was
laid to rest. 1

1 Senate Debates, ix, 5-16.

CHAPTER XIII

MR. DE VALERA ENTERS THE DAlL

Emergency legislation demanded by the assassination — The Public
Safety Bill — The Electoral Amendment Bill— Amendment of Constitu-
tion regarding referendum and initiative — Mr. De Valera's dilemma —
Fianna Fail enter the Dail and subscribe the Oath — Preparations for
referendum on Electoral Amendment Bill not proceeded with — Mr. De
Valera's arrangement with Labour Party and National League — The
motion of no confidence — Revolt of Mr. Vincent Rice, K.C. — The
Jinks episode — The motion defeated by casting vote of the Chair — The
dissolution — The election campaign — Rival policies — Mr. De Valera’s
moderation — Major Bryan Cooper joins the Government party — Re-
sult of the general election of September 1927 — The new Administration
— Fianna Fail and the legitimacy of the State — Mr. De Valera cmd the
right of the Republican Government and Army to claim continuity —
The Leader of the Labour Party on Mr. De Valera’s attitude — At-
tempted presentation of a petition for a referendum to abolish the Oath
— The Government replies with a Bill to abolish the referendum and the ‘
initiative — Criticism of the Government’s action — Passage of the Bill
by the Dail.

Following the assassination of Kevin O’Higgins, Mr. Cosgrave took
over for the time being the portfolios of Justice and External Affairs>
and Mr. Blythe, the Minister for Finance, was appointed Vice-
President. The Government’s proposals for dealing with the emer-
gency were contained in three Bills, all introduced in the Dail on the
20th July. The first, a Public Safety Bill, gave power to the Executive
Council to declare as unlawful any association which had for its
object the overthrow by force of the Government of the Irish Free
tate or pursued similar treasonable or seditious activities ; and mem-
ers ip of such associations, and the possession of documents relat-

214

EMERGENCY LEGISLATION 215

mg to them, were made offences punishable by* penal servitude.
Drastic powers of search were conferred by the Bill, and the Execu-
tive Council was authorized to establish special courts for the trial of
offences named in the Bill. One member of each such court had to be
a person certified by the Attorney-General as having legal knowledge
and experience, and the others were to be Army officers. A special
court had power to inflict the penalty of death or penal servitude for
life for the offence of unlawful possession of firearms.

This Bill was quickly passed into law, no amendment being carried
to it in the Senate. It was clearly a case of desperate diseases needing
desperate remedies, and the Labour opposition was re-inforccd only
by Senators Colonel Moore and Mrs. Wyse Power, who had been
members of the Senate from the beginning and who both subse-
quently joined Mr. De Valera’s party. Joint Resolutions were passed
by both Houses, declaring that the Bill was immediately necessary for
the preservation of the public peace and safety, thus removing it from
the referendum provisions of the Constitution ; and it became law
on the 1 1th August 1927. Some of its provisions clearly infringed the
constitutional guarantees of the liberty of the subject and trial by
jury, and this difficulty was surmounted by the insertion of a section
to the effect that ‘every provision of this Act which is in contraven-
tion of any provision of the Constitution shall . . . operate and have
effect as an amendment’ thereof. It seems extremely doubtful whether
such general words as these could operate to effect a valid amendment
of the Constitution within the meaning of Article 50; but this par-
ticular Public Safety Act had a short life, being repealed on the 26th
December 1928, and its constitutionality was nevertested in thccourts.

The second of the Government’s three measures, an Electoral
Amendment Bill, was designed to meet the abstentionist policy of
Fianna Friil and Sinn Fdin, which was a prime cause of unrest in the
country. The Bill provided that ever)’ candidate for election to cither
House should, on nomination, swear an affidavit that he would, if
elected, take the Oath prescribed by the Constitution. Eveiy member
elected who failed to do so within the lime prescribed by the Bill
would be disqualified and his scat vacated. This Bill was passed by
the Senate on the same day as the Public Safety Bill (10th August
1927), but its formal enactment was suspended in circumstances
which will be referred to later.

The third Bill proposed to amend the Constitution in two respects:
first, the right of members to demand a referendum under Article 47
of the Constitution was to be restricted to members who had taken

216 MR. DE VALERA ENTERS THE DAlL

the Oath; and second, the provisions were to be deleted which per-
mitted of the initiation by the people of proposals for laws or con-
stitutional amendments. This Bill received a Second Reading in the
Ddil, but was killed by the dissolution of the 25th August.

Mr. De Valera was placed in a cruel dilemma by the Electoral
Amendment Bill. For the second time within less than two years he
was called upon either to sacrifice his principles or to face political ex-
tinction. In the spring of 1926, after having been repudiated by the
Irish Republican Army, he had seceded from Sinn Fdin, recog-
nized the Irish Free State Parliament, and thereby abandoned the
all-Ireland Republic of which he had been President. In his new
organization, Fianna Fail, he had concentrated on the abolition of
the Oath and, as we have seen, had made it clear in speeches innumer-
able that in no circumstances would he subscribe it. As recently as
the 29th May, at Athlone, he had stated that ‘they had those taking
it who did not mean to keep it, and those were nothing more or less
than perjurers who had abjured their nationality’. 1 There was now
little doubt that, in face of the certain passage of the Electoral Amend-
ment Bill, a number of his followers, perhaps the majority, would
take the Oath and their seats. Already, one of them, Mr. Darnel
Breen, had done so the previous January. On the 26th July Mr.
Patrick Belton, a man of considerable force of character, had broken
with Fianna F&il and done likewise. If the majority of the party
should decide to follow suit, Mr. De Valera would either have to go
with them or retire from politics. The only abstentionist party in the
State would then be Sinn Fdin ; but he had already broken with Sinn
F6in on the issue of the Republic, and there was small likelihood that
he would be received back into its ranks as a leader.

A conference of the Fianna Fail members was held on the 10th
August 1927 to discuss the question. It will be recalled that, on that
date, none of the three Bills referred to had yet been passed into law.
The discussion was prolonged, and it was not until after midnight
thata decision was arrived at. Thisdecision was embodied inalongcom-
munication to the Press, which published it the next morning. Refer-
ence was made to the three Bills, and the communication continued :

They recognize that this legislation may imperil the general peace
and cause widespread suffering ; that it disfranchises, and precludes
from engaging in any effective peaceful political movement towards
independence, all Irish Republicans who will not acknowledge that
any allegiance is due to the English Crown. Nevertheless, they have
1 Irish Independent , 30 May 1927.

FIANNA FAIL SUBSCRIBE THE OATH 217
conic unanimously to the decision that even under thesccircumstanccs
it is not competent for them, as pledged Republicans, and as elected
representatives of the Republican section of the community, to trans-
fer their allegiance.

‘It has, however, been repeatedly stated, and it is not uncommonly
believed, that the required declaration is not an oath, that the signing
of it implies no contractual obligation, and that it has no binding
significance in conscience or in law; that, in short, it is merely an
empty political formula which deputies could conscientiously sign
without becoming involved, or without involving their nation, in
obligations of loyalty to the English Crown.’

The communication ended with an intimation that, on this basis,
the members of Fianna Fail proposed to attend at the Parliament
buildings and comply with Article 17 of the Constitution by subscrib-
ing their names in the book kept for the purpose. 1

Mr. De Valera had again apparently sacrificed principle to expe-
diency, and there is a curious similarity between the two cases.
When he decided to recognize the Free State Parliament, he held it up
to odium as ‘frankly, a non-sovereign, subordinate, twenty-six county
institution’. When he decided to subscribe the Oath, it was charac-
terized as ‘merely an empty political formula’.

On the following day (11th August 1927), Mr. Dc Valera and his
forty-two followers subscribed the Oath. This volte face must have
been unexpected even to his intimates, for the copy of the weekly
paper of Mr. Dc Valera’s own party. The Nation, which is dated two
days later (but which must have gone to press earlier), contains the
following: ‘If all the Fianna Fail deputies published to-morrow a
signed declaration that in their opinion the oath in the Free State
Constitution is an unsworn undertaking, the oath would still remain
an oath and to swear it falsely would still continue to be perjury.'*
Nearly five years later, after Mr. Dc Valera had achieved power, he
told the Ddil what happened when he subscribed the Oath.

‘Believing that “I swear” would mean an oath. I said, in my
opinion, it was an oath. My view was that it was an oath. But the
Deputies opposite had said quite differently. They said that it was not,
that it was a mere formality — they used the words long before I used
them — and had no binding significance whatever, that anyone could
take it, and that it meant nothing. I asked myself whether in a crisis
like that I would be justified in staying outside if it were, in fact, true
that this thing was a mere formality. I could only find out in one way.

J Irish Times, 1 1 August 1927. 8 Tt:e Nation . 13 August 1927.

218 MR. DE VALERA ENTERS THE DAlL

In order that the people’s attention should not be attracted to it, in-
stead of taking the oath— as they would have done, if they dared to
stand over it as a thing the Irish people would stand for— publicly,
as in other Parliaments, they hid it away in a back room, hid it away
out of sight, so that the public could not know what it was. I said
that at least we were entitled to find out. We published a declaration
and here is the original document, signed by every member, in which
we stated our attitude. The attitude was in fact this : the majority
party of that time held that this was no oath at all ; we are going to
put it to the test. In order that our coming in here might not be mis-
represented we made a public declaration as to what our intentions
were. When we came to take this so-called oath I presented this
document to the officer in charge and told him that that was our
attitude — there were witnesses present for every word — that this was
our attitude; that we were not prepared to take an oath. I have here
the original document written in pencil, and in Irish, of the statement
I made to the officer who was supposed to administer the oath. I said,
“I am not prepared to take an oath. I am not going to take an oath.
I am prepared to put my name down in this book in order to get per-
mission to go into the Dail, but it has no other significance.” There
was a Testament on the table and in order that there could be no
misunderstanding I went and I took the Testament and put it over
and said, “You must remember I am taking no oath.” ’

A Deputy having here interrupted to ask whether he did not sign
the declaration, Mr. De Valera replied : ‘I signed it in the same way
as I would sign an autograph in a newspaper. If you ask me whether
I had an idea what was there, I say “Yes.” It was neither read to me
nor was I asked to read it.’ 1

Put more precisely and in unemotional language, what this explana-
tion amounts to is this. Mr. De Valera believed that the Oath was an
oath. His political opponents said it was a mere formality. There was
only one way in which he could ascertain which contention was
correct, and that was to go and see. He did so on the 11th August,
found that it was a formality, and, as such, he complied with it for
the purpose of obtaining admission to the Ddil. But this explanation
must be read in the light of what had occurred on the previous 23rd
June. On that date, as we have seen, he had already gone to see for
himself, he had been shown into the ‘back room’, and the ‘officer in
charge’ had characterized the oath as a ‘formality’. But Mr. De
„ Valera had then refused compliance and had retired to his party
1 Dail Debates, x li, 1101, 1102.

‘NO CONFIDENCE’ MOTION 219

headquarters, from which he informed his audience that ‘they
pledged themselves to the people that as long as they were the
representatives of the people they would never take an oath of
allegiance to a foreign king. They had been prevented because they
would neither take a false oath nor prove recreant to the aspirations
of the Irish people and renounce their principles.’ What had been a
matter of high principle on the 23rd June had become an ‘empty
political formula’ on the following 11th August. The reason was that
the passage of the Electoral Amendment Bill would stand between
Mr. De Valera and power.

The forty-three members of the Fianna Fail Party took their scats
in the Ddil on the 12th August 1927 ; and they at once combined with
the members of the Labour Party to furnish the sixty-two signatures
(being two-fifths of the entire House) necessary for a written demand
to suspend the Electoral Amendment Bill for ninety days, prepara-
tory to a referendum. This should have been followed up by a peti-
tion signed by not less than one-twentieth of tire voters on the
register; but no such petition was presented, and the Bill became
law after the period of ninety days had elapsed (9th November 1927).
But it had fully succeeded of its purpose long before its formal enact-
ment, and in this way it must be unique among Acts of Parliament.

By combining with the Labour Party (twenty-two votes) and the
National League (eight votes), Mr. De Valera was now in a position,
on a full muster of all parties, to overtop by a few votes the united
strength of the Government, Farmers , and Independents. Negotia-
tions took place and an arrangement was concluded on the basis,
apparently, that the Government was to be put out of office and that
Mr. Johnson and Captain Redmond should form a coalition govern-
ment which would be kept in power by Mr. De Valera. From the
Labour point of view, this was a legitimate move enough ; but it is
not easy to understand how men who still called themselves Republi-
cans were prepared to keep Captain Redmond in office, or how
Captain Redmond could be prepared to accept office from them. The
matter was put to the test immediately. On the 16th August Mr.
Johnson moved ‘That the Executive Council has ceased to retain the
support of a majority in Drill Eireann’. But the result was not in
accordance with expectations. Mr. Vincent Rice. K.C., by a long
way the ablest member of the National League, denounced his
leader's flagitious bargain in unmeasured terms.

‘Does Deputy Redmond think that a child would be deceived as
to who is to control the new Government? Does he imagine that

220 MR. DE VALERA ENTERS THE DAlL

Deputy De Valera and his party will waste their time keeping him in
power if they are not advancing his policy? I do not think that
Deputy De Valera has ever disguised that his aim is to get rid of the
Treaty and the Constitution, and, if he is not serving that purpose by
keeping Deputy Redmond in office, how many hours will he keep
him there? Let us get back to the plain facts of the case and recognize
that this Government will not last one hour except, and so long as, it
obeys the behest of Deputy De Valera and his party.’ 1

While the debate was in progress Major Bryan Cooper, a Sligo man
who was an Independent deputy for County Dublin, had a conversa-
tion with Alderman John Jinks, National League member for Sligo.
Major Cooper pointed out to Mr. Jinks that the ex-servicemen of
Sligo had certainly never sent him to the Dail for the purpose of put-
ting Mr. Cosgrave out of office and of helping Mr. De Valera. Mr.
Jinks replied that in that case perhaps the best thing for him to do
would be to take the next train back to Sligo ; which he did. As a re-
sult of his abstention, and of the transfer of Mr. Vincent Rice’s vote
to the other side, the division on the ‘No Confidence’ motion
resulted in a tie, seventy-one members voting for the motion and
seventy-one against. The Chairman gave his casting vote against the
motion, which was declared lost. For the time being, Mr. Jinks was
the laughing stock of the English-speaking world, and, more Hiber-
nico, a celebrated racehorse was named after him. Captain Redmond’s
National League was doomed ; and Mr. De Valera gained nothing
but a reputation for willingness to play a purely political game to suit
his own ends. There were two by-elections pending, and the Ddil
adjourned until the 11th October, Mr. Cosgrave undertaking to sum-
mon it immediately if the Government did not win them both. It did
so by substantial majorities, Mr. Cosgrave advised a dissolution, and
on the 25th August the Dail was dissolved, after a short life of only
two months.

The election campaign which ensued was brief but bitter. All parties
were short of funds, and the number of candidates was only 261, as
compared with 383 in the previous June. Sinn F6in dropped out
altogether, and there was a fissure in the Labour ranks between the
moderate and the extreme elements. The Farmers were virtually
allied with the Cosgrave party, and the struggle once more resolved
itself into one between the Government and Fianna Fdil. With power
so near his grasp, Mr. De Valera was studiously moderate in tone,
e Republic was kept in the background, and he emphasized in a
1 Dail Debates , xx, 1 708,

RESULT OF THE GENERAL ELECTION 221

manifesto addressed to ‘The People of Ireland’ that ‘the sinister
design of aiming at bringing about a sudden revolutionary upheaval
with which our opponents choose to credit us is altogether foreign to
our purpose and programme. We do not believe in attempting to
practise sleight-of-hand on the electorate. We shall proceed as a
responsible constitutional Government, acknowledging without re-
serve that all authority comes through the sovereign people, and that
before any important step likely to involve their safety is taken the
people arc entitled to be taken into the fullest consultation. The
stubborn political and economic facts arc of necessity the base from
which any successful advance must be made. To ignore them would
be to court defeat.’ 1 These words might have been culled from the
speeches of Kevin O'Higgins, Patrick Hogan, or any of the pro-
Treaty leaders during the previous five years. But the impossibility,
from the Fianna Friil point of view, of any real union of hearts, such
as was prayed for by Thomas Davis and other Irish patriots, became
apparent during the campaign. Major Bryan Cooper, a Protestant
and a former Unionist Member of Parliament, had sat in the Dail as
an Independent since 1923. He had done more than any other private
individual to reconcile the old regime with the new: and after the
dissolution of August 1927 he joined the Cosgravc party and stood
as a Government candidate. The greatest use was made of this fact
by Mr. De Valera's followers to inflame nationalist opinion against
the Government by throwing the mantle of Unionism over it, and
dead walls were plastered with the offensive slogan, ‘Cooper’s Dip
for Free State Sheep’.

Polling took place on the I5th September 1927, and the result was
as follows :

Party

Candidates

Members

nominated

elected

Cumann na nGaedheal (Cosgravc)

Fianna Fail (De Valera)

Labour

Independents

Farmers

National League

Independent Labour

261

153

1 triik Ir.dtpc

■r.dcr.t, 12 Scp'.cmlcr 192T.

222 MR. DE VALERA ENTERS THE DAlL

Both the major parties had increased their strength at the expense of
the smaller ones, and a neck-and-neck race had just been won by Mr.
Cosgrave. Captain Redmond’s National League had been practically
wiped out, the only survivors being the leader and Mr. Cobum, of
Dundalk. The Farmers had fared little better. The Labour Party had
been nearly halved, and its able chairman, Mr. Thomas Johnson, paid
the penalty of his moderation by losing his seat in County Dublin.'
Thus, after five years, despite the encouragement given by propor-
tional representation to small parties and groups, the electors seemed
to have made up their minds that there were to be only two main
parties in the State, with Labour and Independents holding the balance
of power between them. Other parties, founded at different times, had
all disappeared or virtually disappeared: Sinn F6in (1918), the
Farmers’ Party (1922), the National Party (1925), Clann Eireann
(1926), and the National League (1926). And, as Mr. De Valera’s
political education progressed and the Republic receded further int<$
the background, the difference between the two main parties seemed
likely to diminish.

The Cosgrave party was still the largest in the Dail and it was the
only one in a position to form a government. It came to an under-
standing with the Farmers’ Party, as a result of which the new leader
of that party (Mr. M. R. Heffernan) was given a Parliamentary
Secretaryship and so associated with the Administration. When
Parliament reassembled on the 11th October Mr. Cosgrave was
elected President of the Executive Council by seventy-six votes to
seventy. There was no other candidate for the office, and the opposi-
tion consisted of the combined strength of Fianna Fail and Labour.
The two members of the National League took no part in the divi-
sion. 1 On the following day, after a long and tedious debate, the Dail
assented by the same majority to Mr. Cosgrave’s nominations to his
Executive Council, as follows :

Vice-President, Minister for Finance and Minister for Posts and
Telegraphs : Ernest Blythe
Minister for Defence : Desmond Fitzgerald
Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister for External
Affairs : Patrick McGilligan
Minister for Education : John M. O’Sullivan
Minister for Lands and Agriculture: Patrick Hogan
Minister for Local Government and Public Health : Richard
Mulcahy

1 Dail Debates , xxi, 18-58.

INEXPERIENCE OF FI ANN A FAIL 223

Minister for Fisheries: Finian Lynch

Minister for Justice: James Fitzgcrald-Kcnncy. K.C.

As compared with the previous June, the only changes were those
necessitated by the assassination of Kevin O'Higgins and the retire-
ment from the Dail of Mr. J. J. Walsh. The portfolio of Posts and
Telegraphs was combined with that of Finance. Mr. McGilligan
assumed responsibility for External Affairs as well as for his old
Ministry of Industry and Commerce, and the sole newcomer to the
Cabinet was Mr. Fitzgcraid-Kcnney, a member of the Inner Bar of
high professional standing, who became Minister for Justice.

The result of the election was a blessing in disguise for Mr. Dc
Valera. At that time neither he nor any member of his Shadow
Cabinet had had any experience of government, and they could not
have assumed office with any prospect of success. Mr. De Valera
seemed not even to know the meaning of the collective responsibility
of the Cabinet, for when the Chairman of the Dail followed the usual
practice of putting the Executive Council to the House for approval
cn bloc , he protested angrily that the Dail should have the right of
veto over each individual Minister. He told the Chairman that if
there was someone else in the Chair his ruling might be different, and
suggested that the Constitution was being overridden. 1 But when he
became President in 1932, the former precedents were followed under
a new Chairman, and the Council was approved as a single entity
without debate. 2 Nor did Mr. Dc Valera appear to have any clear
appreciation of the respective functions of the Executive and the
Legislature, for when the second portion of the National Loan was
about to be issued in November 1927 he was astonished that the Dail
was not to be allowed to discuss its terms. 3 In these and numerous
other ways it was necessary' for Fianna Fail to serve an apprentice-
ship before they could with any confidence take over the administra-
tion.

In external affairs, also, the four and a half years spent by him in
opposition were to prove invaluable to Mr. Dc Valera. In 1927 he
could hardly have put his policy into operation without a formal
repudiation of the Treaty, and this was a step which perhaps he would
have hesitated to take. He could not have solved the Anglo-Irish
problem by negotiation, because his point of view at that time, as
expressed by his spokesman Mr. P. J. Little, was that 'an invitation
to London is an invitation to the fly into the spider's wcb\‘ Mcan-

* D.iil Debates, xxi. 1 IhJ., vh. 57,?'*.

* Ibid., x\i, J922, 1925. * thd.. xU, in:?.

224 MR. DE VALERA ENTERS THE DAlL

time, Ministers of the Cosgrave Government were meeting the
British in London as equals. Their participation in the Conference
on the Operation of Dominion Legislation, 1929, and in the Imperial
Conference, 1930, led up to the enactment of the Statute of West-
minster in 1931. Thus, in their last year of office they cleared the path
for Mr. De Valera and rendered it possible for him to implement his
policy.

The end of abstentionism ought to have meant the beginning of a
stable polity, but this was retarded by the unhappy fact that the
recognition by Fianna Fdil of the Government and Parliament of the
Irish Free State was neither whole-hearted nor unequivocal. Mr.
Se&n Lemass, who had been ‘Minister for Defence’ in the Govern-
ment of the ‘Republic’, defined his party’s position in a speech in the
Ddil on the 21st March 1928.

‘Fianna Fdil is a slightly constitutional party. We are perhaps open
to the definition of a constitutional party, but before anything we are
a Republican party. We have adopted the method of political agita-
tion to achieve our end because we believe, in the present circum-
stances, that method is best in the interests of the nation and of the
Republican movement, and for no other reason. Five years ago the
methods we adopted were not the methods we have adopted now.
Five years ago we were on the defensive, and perhaps in time we may
recoup our strength sufficiently to go on the offensive. Our object is
to establish a Republican Government in Ireland. If that can be done
by the present methods we have, we will be very pleased, but, if not,
we would not confine ourselves to them.’ 1

On the 27th February 1929 Mr. Sedn T. O’Kelly referred to the
Minister for Defence in public debate as ‘the so-called Minister for
Defence’ ; 2 and on the 14th March following Mr. De Valera gave his
views on the legitimacy of the State in a long speech.

‘I still hold that our right to be regarded as the legitimate Govern-
ment of this country is faulty, that this House itself is faulty. You
have secured a de facto position. Very well. There must be some' body
in charge to keep order in the community, and by virtue of your de
facto position you are the only people who are in a position to do it.
But as to whether you have come by that position legitimately or
not, I say you have not come by that position legitimately. You

brought off a coup d’e'tat in the summer of 1 922

If you are not getting the support from all sections of the com-

1 Dail Debates, xxii, 1615, 1616.

2 Ibid., xxviii, 460.

REPUBLICAN RIGHT TO CONTINUITY 225

munity that is necessary for any Executive if it is going to dispense
with a large police force, it is because there is a moral handicap in
your case. We are all morally handicapped because of the circum-
stances in which the whole thing came about. The setting up of this
State put a moral handicap on every one of us here. We came in here
because we thought that a practical rule could be evolved in which
order could be maintained ; and we said that it was necessary to have
some assembly in which the representatives of the people by a majo-
rity vote should be able to decide national policy. As we were not
able to get a majority to meet outside this House, we had to come
here if there was to be a majority at all of the people’s representatives
in any one assembly

‘As a practical rule, and not because there is anything sacred in it,
I am prepared to accept majority rule as settling matters of national
policy, and therefore as deciding who it is that shall be in charge of
order

‘I for one, when the flag of the Republic was run up against an
Executive that was bringing off a coup d’etat, stood by the flag of the
Republic, and I will do it again. As long as there was a hope of
maintaining that Republic, either by force against those who were
bringing off that coup d'etat or afterwards, as long as there was an
opportunity of getting the people of this country to vote again for the
Republic, I stood for it.

‘My proposition that the representatives of the people should
come in here and unify control so that we would have one Govern-
ment and one Army was defeated, and for that reason I resigned.
Those who continued on in that organization which we have left can
claim exactly the same continuity that we claimed- up to 1925. They
can do it

‘You have achieved a certain de facto position, and the proper
thing for you to do with those who do not agree that this State was
established legitimately, and who believe that as a matter of fact
there was a definite betrayal of everything that was aimed at from
1916 to 1922, is to give those people the opportunity of working, andi
without in any way forswearing their \iews, to get the Irish people as
a whole again behind them. They have the right to it. You have no
right to debar them from going to the Irish people and asking them
to support the re-establishment, or if they so wish to put it, to support
the continuance of the Republic

‘The Executive have been trying to use force, and have been using
it all the time. If they are going to meet force by force, then they can-
Q

226 MR. DE VALERA ENTERS THE DAlL

not expect the co-operation of citizens who wish that there should

not be force.’ 1

It has been necessary to give these extended extracts because of
their importance for the understanding of the attitude to the State of
Mr. De Valera and his party. The most serious fallacy is in the
assumption that if the genuine Republicans were given an oppor-
tunity of entering Parliament ‘without in any way forswearing their
views’ (that is, if the Oath were abolished) they would take it. But
the genuine Republicans had not broken with Mr. De Valera on the
question of the Oath, but because they held, as against him, ‘that it
is incompatible with the fundamental principles of Sinn F6in to send
representatives into any usurping legislature set up by English law in
Ireland’. He had asked Sinn Fdin to say that the question of entering
the D&il, if the Oath were removed , was not a question of principle but
of policy ; and Sinn Fdin had refused.

For Mr. De Valera to state that ‘those who continued on in that
organization which we have left [Sinn Fdin] can claim exactly the
same continuity that we claimed up to 1925’ was a declaration of the
utmost gravity. It could mean nothing less than that, in his opinion,
the Government of the Republic was still the de jure government of
the whole of Ireland, and that the Irish Republican Army was still
the de jure army. The mere abolition of the Oath would not affect
this position. Mr. De Valera might, in course of time, succeed Mr.
Cosgrave as head of the Government. He might remove the Oath
without formally repudiating the Treaty. But, even so, he could
hardly expect that his moral right ‘to meet force by force’ would not
be questioned by the Irish Republican Army.

Mr. T. J. O’Connell, who had succeeded Mr. Thomas Johnson in
the leadership of the Labour Party, immediately took up this point.

‘I want to know where we stand here. I want to know from the
leader of the chief Opposition Party, who may be the President of
the Executive Council of this State in a very short time, and who
might possibly look to receive support from our Party to put him
into that position, where we stand? Have we a Government in this
country? Who is the Government of this country if those people who
have been voted in by the majority of this House are not the Govern-
ment of the country? I do not agree with the policy of the present
Government ; I am in opposition to the present Government ; but I am
forced to recognize that while they are there they are the custodians of
law and order in this country until we put somebody else in their place,
1 Ddil Debates , xxviii, 1398-1405.

LABOUR LEADER’S CRITICISM 227

and it is the duty of all right-thinking men to obey the laws while those
laws are there. It is our duty to make the laws ; it is our duty to see that,
in so far as we can — we may not always be able to do it — the laws are
equitable. But as responsible citizens it is also our duty, once the
law is made, to obey that law and to do our best to see that it is
obeyed until it is changed in this House. That is a fundamental prin-
ciple that must be, I think, accepted by everybody — by any of us who
has any respect for law.

‘Now, who is the Government of this country? Where are they if
they are not the Party that is sitting there? If they are not, who is the
legitimate Government of this State? Deputy De Valera made what
to me sounded as an extraordinary statement when he said that those
who now claim to be what I took him to mean the legitimate Govern-
ment of the country are people who are outside this House, who are
not represented in this House. That was the conclusion I drew from
what he said ; I may be wrong, but that was the clear inference when
he said that they could claim the same continuity and authority as
they themselves claimed when they were in that position, and we
know what they claimed when they were in that position. And he has
come in here, has taken part in the work of this Assembly, taken
part in the making of laws for this Assembly, while he now says that
this is not a legitimate Assembly, that the legitimate authority and
Government of this country reside in some body outside this House.
That to me is certainly a most extraordinary statement, and I think
it is a statement that will not serve the interests of this country and
will not serve the interests of the community as a whole.’ 1

All this seems so true as to be axiomatic, but it evoked no modifica-
tion of his attitude from Mr. De Valera ; and it was clear that little
help could be expected by the Government from Fianna Fail in its
efforts to suppress disorder. The matter had, in fact, been put to the
test much earlier. On the 28th March 1928 the Minister for Defence
stated that it would be ‘a very important and useful assurance’ if
members of Fianna Fail would undertake to convey to the police any
information that might come into their possession which might lead
to the apprehension of the murderers of Kevin O’Higgins. No such
assurance was forthcoming. Mr. P. J. Little stated that ‘it is absurd to
say to any Party that they are to act as if they were officers of the
police of the Government’, and when the question was again raised
he said : ‘ My answer to that was that to undertake to do that — there
might be circumstances when one could undertake to do a thing like
1 Dill Debates, xxviii, 1406, 1407.

228 MR. DE VALERA ENTERS THE DAlL

that — would put one into a position of odium altogether. It is really
a matter for one’s personal conscience as a citizen as to what he would
do if circumstances like those arose. But it is very unfair to try to put
a whole Party in a position in which they are required to give a certain
undertaking. It would be unfair to impose that on the Labour Party,
for instance. What the individual conscience would do on a. question
like that would be quite a different matter.’ Mr. McGilligan retorted,
‘I did not understand the Deputy’s statement, but he does not admit it
is his duty as a citizen to give information,’ whereupon another Fianna
Fail member (Mr. Cooney) interjected, ‘To become an informer.’ 1

At the Fianna F&il Party Convention in November 1927 Mr. De
Valera announced his intention of invoking Article 48 of the Consti-
tution in order to get rid of the Oath. The relevant portion of this
Article stated that ‘The Oireachtas may provide for the Initiation by
the people of proposals for laws or constitutional amendments.
Should the Oireachtas fail to make such provision within two years,
it shall on the petition of not less than seventy-five thousand voters
on the register, of whom not more than fifteen thousand shall be
voters in any one constituency, either make such provisions or submit
the question to the people for decision in accordance with the ordi-
nary regulations governing the Referendum.’ No provision had been
made to enable the people to exercise the Initiative, and so Fianna
F&il set about preparing a petition to compel this to be done. Tacked
on to the petition was an indication of the immediate object, namely,
the deletion from the Constitution of the Article which contained the
Oath. 2 By the end of April 1928 the petition was ready for presenta-
tion, and on the 3rd May an attempt was made to present it. Mr.
Cosgrave lodged a formal objection, and Mr. De Valera tabled a
motion that leave be given to present the petition. A protracted debate
took place on this motion, extending over four days, and ultimately
an amendment was carried to it, proposed by Professor Thrift (an
Independent) that the matter be not further considered until the
Oireachtas had prescribed the procedure for the presentation of such
petitions (1st June 1928). Professor Thrift put down a consequential
motion to refer the question of procedure to a Joint Committee of
both Houses; but the discussion on this was forestalled by the
Government. Six days later (7th June 1928) they introduced a Bill
to amend the Constitution by deleting the provisions regarding the
Referendum and the Initiative.

1 Ddil Debates , xxii, 1960, 1966, 1973, 1974.

2 Full text in Ddil Debates , xxiii, 1499, 1500.

ABOLITION OF REFERENDUM 229

Mr. Cosgrave had . undoubtedly been wrong in opposing Mr. De
Valera’s motion for the presentation of the petition, for the latter
was technically within his rights under the Constitution. On the other
hand, the Initiative had been inserted in the Constitution for the
purpose of inculcating a sense of political responsibility among the
people, and this first attempt at its use was as irresponsible as it could
well have been. The Oath was, and is, an integral part of the Treaty.
The Treaty had been made the sole issue by Mr. De Valera at the
general elections of 1922 and 1923, and he had been heavily defeated.
He had made the Oath an issue at the two general elections held in
1927, and he had been defeated again. Moreover, the petition could
never have achieved its object. Section 2 of the Constitution Act (to
which the Constitution and the Treaty are scheduled) states that if
any amendment of the Constitution ‘is in any respect repugnant to
any of the provisions of the Scheduled Treaty, it shall, to the extent
only of such repugnancy, be absolutely void and inoperative’. Mr.
De Valera had accordingly been engaged in a political manoeuvre to
gain an end which he had failed to reach by other means, and to
amend the Constitution in a respect which the Constituent Assembly
had decreed should be void and inoperative.

But the Government’s method of dealing with the situation by
abolishing both the Referendum and the Initiative seems in retrospect
to have been too drastic. No tears need have been shed over the
disappearance of the Initiative, which is a constitutional device quite
unsuited to Ireland in its present stage of political development ; but
the abolition of the Referendum was quite another matter. The
Referendum applied not only to ordinary Bills, but also to Bills
amending the Constitution passed within an experimental period of
eight years, i.e. up to the 5th December 1930. In the case of all such
Bills, a Referendum could be demanded by three-fifths of the mem-
bers of the Senate or by a petition signed by not less than one-
twentieth of the voters on the register. This was a valuable safeguard,
especially in regard to constitutional amendments. After the period
of eight years had expired the Referendum was automatic for Bills
amending the Constitution, and this provision was left intact. But for
all other purposes the Referendum was abolished, including constitu-
tional amendments passed within the eight years. At the time the Bill
abolishing the Referendum was enacted (12th July 1928), the eight
years’ period had only eighteen months more to run, and it probably
did not seem worth while to retain the Referendum for constitutional
amendments for such a short time, especially as no revolutionary

230 MR. DE VALERA ENTERS THE DAIL

changes were contemplated by the Cosgrave Government. The whole
situation was transformed, however, by the action of the same
Government in the following year (1929), when a Bill was passed
extending the eight years’ period to sixteen years. As a result, if Mr.
De Valera became the head of the Government, he could amend the
Constitution by ordinary legislation up to the 5th December 1938,
and neither the Senate nor the people could force a Referendum on
his proposals.

The Bill to abolish the Referendum and the Initiative was finally
passed by the Ddil on the 28th June 1928, and its passage was marked
by a scene in which a prominent member of Mr. De Valera’s party
was suspended. 1 The Government thereupon took the further step of
getting the Ddil to declare that the Bill was necessary for the imme-
diate preservation of the public peace and safety, and so forestalled
the possibility of a Referendum being demanded in regard to it. It
seems impossible to justify the application of this procedure to such
a Bill. This particular provision was inserted in the Constitution so
that Bills urgently required in times of crisis might be passed into law
without any delay whatever, and it required a declaration of both
Houses. The Ddil declaration was passed on the 28th June, but the
parallel declaration in the Senate was not moved until the following
12th July. This fact alone is sufficient to show that the Bill was not
required for the immediate preservation of the public peace. One
would have supposed that if ever there was a constitutional amend-
ment on which a Referendum might properly have been demanded,
it was an amendment to deprive the people of the right to demand a
Referendum.

The Senate’s reaction to this Bill and its connection with other
constitutional amendments affecting the powers of the Second
Chamber are dealt with in the chapter which follows.

1 Ddil Debates, xxiv, 1740-50.

CHAPTER XIV

THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE SENATE

The Senate requests a Joint Committee to consider changes in the
constitution and powers of the Second Chamber and in the method of
election — Mr. De Valera's attitude — Mr. Lemass and a ‘ bulwark of
imperialism' — The Joint Committee set up — Mr. De Valera's activities
as a member of it — Abuse of the Senate by leading members of Fianna
Fail — Report of the Joint Committee — Adoption of its recommenda-
tions — Altered system of election — Minimum age and term of office re-
duced — Power of suspension increased — Opposition to certain of the
proposed changes — Senator O' Farrell's brilliant speeches — Views of
oilier Senators — The Second Triennial Election — Failure of the new
system — Result of the election — The entry of Fianna Fail— Influx of
ex-members of the Ddil into the Senate — The work of revision sum-
marized— Retirement of Lord Glenavy — Tributes to his conduct of the
Chair — His qualities and defects — His death.

Th c second Triennial Election to the Senate was due to take place
in the autumn of 1928. It was generally admitted that the experience
of the previous election had proved that the method of election by the
whole country was undesirable, but the exciting events of 1927 had
left little time for a new method to be devised. There was also a feel-
ing that some reconsideration of the composition and powers of the
Second Chamber ought to be undertaken. Accordingly, the following
resolution was passed by the Senate on the 15th February 1928:
‘That it is expedient that a Joint Committee, consisting of five mem-
bers of the Dail and five members of the Seanad, with the Chairman
of each House ex officio, be set up to consider and report on the
changes, if any, necessary in the constitution and powers of, and
methods of election to Seanad Eireann.’ This resolution was adopted
on the initiative of Senator O’Farrell, who proposed it in a speech

231

232 THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE SENATE

which showed not only a just appreciation of the work already ac-
complished by the Senate but also a wide knowledge of Second
Chambers in general. He made it clear that he was not personally in
favour of a change in the method of election, but regarded it as a
proper subject for discussion. The resolution was passed unani-
mously. 1

When the appropriate message requesting concurrence came before
the Dail, Mr. De Valera explained his party’s attitude in the follow-
ing short speech: ‘We are against the setting up of this particular
Committee. We think that the proper thing to do is to end the Senate
and not to attempt to mend it. It is costly, and we do not see any
useful function that it really serves.’ 2

At this time the utility of the Senate to the State was at its height.
Though its powers were restricted, its personnel was hardly inferior
to that of any Second Chamber in Europe. The reason of the Fianna
Fail antagonism to the Senate was its hostility to the ex-Unionist
section of the community, a hostility which, whilst it endures, pre-
cludes any union of hearts in the Irish Free State and makes a united
Ireland a vain dream. Mr. Lemass, who followed his leader, dwelt
on this aspect of the Senate. ‘It is a body created, as we all know, not
to improve the machinery of administration in this country, but to
give political power to a certain class that could not get that power
if they had to go before the people at a free election and get the
people to vote them into office. The Senate was set up to put a certain
section of the community into a position where they could influence
the course of legislation — a section of the community that was always
hostile to the interests of Irish nationalism, and that was always
hostile to the Irish nation. And we think that this bulwark of imperia-
lism should be abolished by the people’s representatives on the first
available opportunity that they get.’ 3 On the date on which these
words were spoken the number of ex-Unionists in the Senate num-
bered at most twenty out of a total of sixty ; and nobody who knew
them individually for the previous five years could believe for a
moment that any single one of them was ‘hostile to the Irish
nation’. Many of them had proved their love of Ireland by refus-
ing to be driven into exile by a campaign of arson directed to that
end.

The Senate’s proposal was agreed to by the Ddil, the whole Fianna
Fdil Party voting against it ; and the Joint Committee was duly set
up. The purpose of the committee was, of course, to produce a better
1 Senate Debates, x, 193-227. * D dil Debates, xxii, 140. 3 Ibid.

FIANNA FAIL ATTITUDE TO SENATE 233

and more efficient Second Chamber. Such being the case, it might
have been expected that the Fianna Fdil Party, in view of their general
attitude, would hold aloof from its proceedings. But Mr. De Valera
himself went on the committee, taking with him his principal lieu-
tenant, Mr. Ruttledge ; and they used their position on the committee
to attempt to produce, not a better Senate but a worse one. No ver-
batim report of the debates was published, but this fact is clearly
deducible from the Journal of Proceedings. Mr. De Valera proposed
that the members of the Senate be elected by the Ddil, and when an
amendment was proposed that it should be elected by both Houses
voting together he voted against it. This amendment having been
carried, he tried, without success, to secure that outgoing Senators
should not be entitled to vote. He attempted to get the numbers re-
duced from sixty to thirty-five, and the term of office reduced to six
years. When it was proposed to increase the Senate’s power of suspen-
sion to two years, he held out for nine months ; and he opposed a
motion that members of the Senate should not continue to be dis-
qualified for membership of the Executive Council. In all these activi-
ties he either obtained no support at all or was supported by only one
other member of the committee. Sometimes it was his colleague Mr.
Ruttledge and sometimes it was a Labour Deputy. A few of Mr. De
Valera’s proposals were carried in the committee, but they can hardly
be characterized as improvements. One of them was that the minimum
age for Senators should be reduced from thirty-five years to thirty,
and another was that casual vacancies should be filled by members of
both Houses voting together and not, as previously, by the Senate
itself. 1

The fact that Messrs. De Valera and Ruttledge used their position
on the committee to try to worsen the Senate instead of improving it
is not merely a matter of deduction. It was proclaimed by Mr. Sedn
T. O’Kelly (who later became Vice-President) when one of the Bills
to implement the committee’s Report came before the Ddil. He spoke
in Irish, and the following is a translation of part of what he said.
‘They were not allowed to propose a motion recommending the Ddil
to abolish the Senate.' They did their utmost to diminish every power
which the Senate had. Our Deputies on the Committee did every-
thing they could to make the country realize that the Senate is not a
useful thing, and they did their utmost to deprive the Senate of what-
ever authority it might have from being elected by the people.’ 2 Mr.
Gerald Boland, another future Minister, said : * As we cannot abolish

1 Reports of Committees, vol. ii, pp. 273-95. 2 Ddil Debates, xxiv, 662.

234 THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE SENATE

the Senate, and as we are not going to have a referendum, we arc
going to make that institution as unpopular as possible.’ 1

Mr. De Valera’s most perverse proposal was that the Senate should
be elected solely by the D&il. When this proposal came before the
Ddil by way of an amendment to the Government’s Bill, Mr. Sean
Lemass, afterwards Minister for Industry and Commerce, explained
its purpose to the House in the following terms : ‘ The purpose of such
amendment is to ensure that if we must have a Senate it will be a
body that will be subordinate to this House, held tight in the grip of
this body and unable to wriggle unless this body so permits it. We
are in favour, of course, of the abolition of the Senate, but if there is
to be a Second House let it be a Second House under our thumb. Let
it be a group of individuals who dare not let a squeak out of them
except when we lift our fingers to give them breath to do it.’ 2 Six
years later, when Mr. De Valera spoke in the Dail on the Second
Reading of his Bill to abolish the Senate, he adverted to his action in
proposing this particular amendment in the Joint Committee, and he
explained his motives. ‘I proposed that it should be election by this
House. Why? Do you think I did not see that it was ultimately going
to get the same political complexion as this House? I did it because
I wanted to get the people to see clearly that in practice it was going
to result in a Chamber practically of the same character as here, that
it was going to be merely a duplication, and that the very things that
are happening were bound to happen.’ 3

Let us examine what this means. Mr. De Valera was the leader of
the second largest party in Parliament, and so had a considerable
share in the making of his country’s laws. He went, as a free agent,
into a Joint Committee one of the purposes of which was to improve
the personnel of the Second Chamber of the Parliament. In that com-
mittee, he resisted a proposal that the election of Senators should be
from a panel selected by a nominating college and representative of
agriculture, labour; education, and other interests (which might have
resulted in an excellent Senate); and he proposed that the Senate
should be elected by the D&il, with the object of rendering it so worth-
less that its abolition would be inevitable.

The Joint Committee reported on the 16th May 1928, and all of its
recommendations were duly implemented by Constitution (Amend-
ment) Bills introduced by the Government. Such of these Bills as fall
within the second Triennial Period will now be considered ; the remain-
der, which became law in 1 929 or 1 930, will be dealt with in their place.

1 Dail Debates, xxiv, 658. 2 Ibid., xxiv, 614. a Ibid., li, 2141.

ALTERED ELECTORAL SYSTEM 235

First as regards the composition of the Senate. The number of
Senators remained unaltered at sixty, but the electorate was to con-
sist of members of the Dail and Senate voting together on principles
of proportional representation (Amendment No. 6 Bill). The election
was to be from a panel of candidates to be formed in manner to be
prescribed by law (Amendment No. 9 Bill); and the method of form-
ing the panel was laid down in the Seanad Electoral Bill. Before each
triennial election the D&il and Senate were each to nominate a list of
as many candidates as there were members to be elected, and in the
preparation of these separate lists each House was to vote on prin-
ciples of proportional representation. The two lists were then to be
combined in one panel, the names being arranged in alphabetical
order, and the two Houses were to vote on this panel, the voting
being by secret ballot and by post. Retiring Senators were not to be
allowed, as of right, to have their names placed on the panel, as they
had been in 1925 . Thus, if there were twenty vacancies, the Senate
was to prepare a list of twenty candidates and the D&il a list of twenty
candidates ; and from the combined panel of forty candidates the
twenty new Senators were to be elected by the secret, postal vote of all
the members of the Senate and the D&il, including the Senators who
were due to retire.

The minimum age for membership of the Senate was reduced from
thirty-five to thirty years (Amendment No. 8 Bill), and the period of
office was altered. Under the old system (casual vacancies being dis-
regarded), one-fourth of the House retired eveiy three years and the
new senators held office for twelve years. Now, one-third of the
members were to retire eveiy three years and their successors were to
hold office for nine years (Amendment No. 7 Bill). There were some
provisions of a transitory character, regarding the term of office of
Senators to be elected in 1928 and 1931, so that after the election of
1931 there should be twenty Senators holding office for three years,
twenty for six years and twenty for nine years, the whole Chamber
being renewable in nine-year periods.

So much for the composition of the Senate. Its powers were also
changed. Formerly, the Senate had had power to suspend a Bill for
270 days, on the expiry of which period, without further action by the
D&il, the Bill was to be deemed to have been passed by both Houses.
We have seen that this provision had had awkward consequences in
the case of the Intoxicating Liquor Bill in 1924. That Bill had not
been passed by the Senate, and, at the end of the suspensory period,
the Government of the day had felt constrained to have it placed on

236 THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE SENATE

the Statute Book, although, they did not then require it. A better
drafted provision was now proposed (Amendment No. 13 Bill). The
Senate was to be given a suspensory power of eighteen months, called
the stated period. In the case of a Bill so suspended, the Dail might,
within one year of the termination of the stated period, by special
resolution again send the Bill to the Senate. If it did so, the Senate
was given sixty days within which to pass the Bill, either without
amendment or with only such amendments as might be agreed to by
the Dail. If the Senate again proved recalcitrant, one further step
was needed before the Bill could become law. On the expiry of the
sixty days, it was necessary for the D&il to pass a resolution that the
Bill was deemed to have been passed by both Houses. This done, the
Bill could be sent for the Royal Assent. The stated period of eighteen
months was cut short by a dissolution of Parliament. In such a case,
the period terminated on the date of the reassembly of Parliament
following a general election.

It was thus proposed to increase the suspensory period given to the
Senate from roughly nine months to roughly twenty months. As
against this, it must be remembered that, at the time this Bill was
being considered, there was another Bill before Parliament which had
as its object the abolition of the Referendum. This was a fortuitous
circumstance, but the power of three-fifths of the members of the
Senate to force a Referendum on any Bill was a valuable constitu-
tional safeguard, and, if the Senate was to agree to forgo it, the in-
crease in its power of suspension might perhaps be regarded as a
substitute. Actually, this increase had been proposed by the Joint
Committee some little time before the Bill to abolish the Referendum
had been introduced; and the Committee had passed a resolution
recommending that, if its proposal were accepted, the right of the
Senate to demand a Referendum should be confined to Bills amend-
ing the Constitution. 1

The reception of this block of Bills in the Senate was, as might
have been expected in the circumstances, very different from that ac-
corded to them in the Dail, where argument gave place to abuse of
the Second Chamber. In the Senate they had an easy passage, with
the exception of the .Bill to abolish the Referendum and the Bill to
alter the method of election. In the debate on the former, cognizance
was taken of the fact that the Senate’s power of suspension was being
substantially increased, and this lessened the opposition. But if it
had been known that, in a Bill which was to come the following year,
1 Reports of Committees, vol. ii, p. 291 .

SENATOR O’FARRELL’S OPPOSITION 237

the power of amending the Constitution by ordinary legislation was
to be extended from 1930 to 1938, it seems almost certain that the
Senate would have insisted on retaining the right to demand a Refe-
rendum for this class of Bill. As it was, Senators Dowdall, Linehan,
Sir John Keane, and Mrs. Wyse Power voted with the Labour Party
in opposition to the Government’s proposals.

The protagonist for the Referendum was Senator O’Farrell, who
also led the opposition to the proposed new Senate electoral system
in a series of brilliant speeches on the Bill to amend the Constitution
and on the Electoral Bill which implemented it. He held that the
system of election by the whole country had not had a fair trial, and
that the new plan was open to abuse. ‘Instead of qualifying by the
acquisition of useful knowledge or experience, or by a record of
public service, candidates for the Senate in future will have to qualify
mainly as time-servers to half a dozen Deputies. Instead of going out
on the hustings and manfully looking for thousands or tens of
thousands of votes from the electors for whom they propose to legis-
late, the candidates will now have to cadge around the lobbies of
Leinster House to get the votes of the half-dozen people whose follies,
or potential follies, and shortcomings it will be part of their duty to
curb if elected.’ 1 He castigated Mr. De Valera’s followers for posing
as the champions of the people’s rights and at the same time denying
the right of the people to vote for the members of the Second
Chamber. ‘The Fianna Fail Party know that there is to be a Senate.
They know that it is to have very great and very wide powers, that it
is to have the power of holding up a Bill for twenty months, and that
it can thwart if it wishes and can hamper the actions of a patriotic
and progressive Government. In spite of all that, they say that the
people are not to have any views or any effective voice in the election
of members of this House. For downright, brazen hypocrisy, the"
action of the Fianna Fdil Party in regard to the election of the Senate
is without parallel.’ 2

Senator O’Hanlon touched on the same point, and gave the reason
for the attitude of the Opposition. ‘They have failed to abolish this
Chamber, and are likely to do so ; but, inasmuch as they admit at
the present that they cannot abolish this Chamber, or take the neces-
sary steps to do so, they said, “Let us make this a weak, inane, use-
less institution” ; and one of the preliminary steps they are adopting
to make a worthless, useless institution is to remove the process of
election to the Senate away from the people.’ 3

1 Senate Debates, x, 955. 3 Ibid., x, 957.

3 Ibid., x, 970.

238 THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE SENATE

What seemed a sound argument against the new system was ad-
vanced by Senator Westropp Bennett, based on the experience of
1925. ‘We must not overlook the fact that the last Senate was practi-
cally altogether the selection of the Dail and the Senate, because every
man who got on to the panel was put there either by a member of the
Senate or by a member of the Dail. If the members elected have
proved a failure, the electorate is not responsible. Those that put
them on the panel, the members of the Ddil and the Senate, are, I
maintain, responsible. If you believe that the action of the Ddil and
the Senate has proved to be unwise, if you believe that the opinion of
the Dail and the Senate, as expressed in the nineteen members who
were returned at the last election, was bad, then I think it is not a good
plan to give people who have shown their incapacity to nominate a
Senate of sound views the election of them for the future.’ 1

Senator Douglas took a more generous, or perhaps a more idea-
listic, view of political human nature than either Senator O’Farrell
or Senator Westropp Bennett. ‘It seems to me that in making this
experiment we are . . . trusting to the best in the respective political
parties. The parties will have by Proportional Representation the
power of putting men and women into this House. It will be realized
that one cannot tell the exact number, but approximately one will
know the number of persons which a party can elect if they put for-
ward, as I firmly believe they will, most if not all of the persons who
will be a help to their own party in public life, who will be the most
prominent supporters of their party, most likely to help them in party
considerations and in the councils of the party, and to cut a reason-
ably good figure in public life. I believe that is the type of. person the
parties will choose.’ 2

The weight of argument, as expressed in the debates, was against
the new system, but the Bills were passed. On the Final Reading,
however, Senator O’Farrell had an effective last word. He said that
the system was ‘open to disreputable canvassing practices which
have already begun. On the last day we met Senators informed me
that they had already been approached in the ante-rooms of this
House and canvassed for their votes for the forthcoming election. I
have myself certainly had letters asking for my support, and I heard
one man proclaim joyfully and victoriously that he had devoted a
week of his holidays towards securing the necessary support to enable
him to be elected to the Senate for nine years to come. He was able
to come back to work confident in the knowledge that already he
1 Senate Debates , x, 982. 2 ibid., x, 966, 967.

THE SECOND TRIENNIAL ELECTION 239

was as good as elected. I think that is a most undesirable possibility
to place within the reach of anybody who can get within speaking
distance of Leinster House or who can approach sufficient Deputies
and Senators outside it.’ 1

This very debatable question was soon to be put to the test of ex-
perience, as the Triennial Election was held in November 1928.
There were nineteen Senators due to retire, consisting of the fifteen
Senators who had originally been nominated for six years plus four
others who had been elected to fill casual vacancies. Their successors
were to be elected by the combined vote of 153 members of the Dail
and sixty members of the Senate — an electorate of 213. Therefore
twelve first preferences would be certain to elect a Senator, and eleven
or ten would be likely to do so. As a result of the general elections of
June and September 1927, the smaller parties in the Dail had all dis-
appeared, leaving only the Government party, which, with the
Fanners, had about seventy members, the Fianna Fail Party, with
fifty-seven members, and the Labour Party, with thirteen members ;
there being in addition about a dozen Independents. In the Senate,
there was still no strict alignment of parties, with the exception of
the Labour Party of five members. As the members of Fianna Fail
had been making war on the State in 1922 and had boycotted the
Triennial Election of 1925, it had as yet no representation in the
Senate except for two or three Senators who had joined the party
after it had entered the Dail. Apart from these and from the Labour
Senators, the votes of Senators might be expected to go either to the
Government candidates or to the Independent Group (most of whom
were ex-Unionists) or to unattached Independents. The result might
accordingly be anticipated with reasonable accuracy. The Fianna
Fdil Party would be able to elect six Senators, the Labour Party two,
and the remaining eleven seats would be distributed between the
Government party and the Independents (including the Independent
Group).

The prospects of re-election of most of the fifteen nominated
Senators would have been very doubtful, and eight of them decided
not to offer themselves as candidates. The four co-opted Senators,
Messrs. Brady, Brown, and Hooper, and Sir Walter Nugent, all went
forward again.

As there were nineteen vacancies, it was the obvious intention of
the Constitution that the voting should be from a panel of thirty-
eight names, compiled as to one-half by the Senate and as to the
1 Senate Debates, x, 1083.

240 THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE SENATE

other half by the Dail. This intention, however, was not fulfilled.
The electors were to be the same people as the compilers of the panel,
and it was therefore known pretty certainly in advance who would be
elected and who would not. It would be foolish for any man of dis-
tinction to expose himself to the humiliation of certain defeat merely
for the purpose of procuring a formal compliance with the Constitu-
tion. The D&il portion of the panel was completed on the 7th
November 1928 ; it contained nineteen names, but six of these were
those of retiring Senators. 1 The Senate portion was completed on the
28th November; it also contained nineteen names, but no less than
eleven of these were duplicated from the Dd.il portion. 2 There were
thus only twenty-seven candidates for the nineteen seats. Actually
there were only twenty-six, as Dr. Michael Davitt, a Government
candidate whose name appeared on both portions of the panel, died
after nomination but before the election. The Electoral Rules had
provided for an eliminating contest in each House, to reduce the
number of candidates to nineteen in each case, but owing to the shor-
tage of candidates this was not necessary.

The seven defeated candidates were :

P. J. Brady Benjamin Haughton

R. A. Butler Thomas Kennedy

Sir Nugent Everard, Bart. The Earl of Wicklow

Lord Farnham

Mr. Brady, Sir Nugent Everard, Mr. Haughton, and the Earl of
Wicklow were outgoing Senators who had all been valuable members
of the House. Mr. Butler, who had been chairman of the Irish
Farmers’ Union, was elected a Senator in 1922 but had lost his seat
at the Triennial Election of 1925. Lord Farnham was a former
Unionist who was a Representative Peer for Ireland. Mr. Kennedy
was a Labour candidate and his unexpected defeat was due to a split
in the Labour Party between the members of the Irish Transport and
General Workers’ Union, of which he was the nominee, and the more
moderate elements of the party. He was elected a Senator in 1934.

The result of the election was as follows :

1. William Sears 4. Joseph Connolly

2. Se&n Milroy 5. Seamas Robinson

3. Mrs. Kathleen Clarke 6. Joseph O’Doherty

1 Dail Journal of Proceedings, 1928, p. 471.

2 Senate Journal of Proceedings, 1928, p. 178.

ELECTION RESULT ANALYSED 241

* 7. Rt. Hon. Andrew
Jameson

8. Alfred Byrne

9. Thomas Johnson
*10. Rt. Hon. Sir Bryan

Mahon

*11. Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
12. Richard Wilson

*13. Dr. Oliver St. J. Gogarty
*14. John Bagwell
*15. Patrick J. Hooper
*16. Sir Walter R. Nugent, Bart.

17. Sedn E. MacEllin

18. Michael Comyn, K.C.

19. The McGillycuddy of the

Reeks

The first six of these were to sit for the full term of nine years, the
next eight for six years and the last five for three years. These adjust-
ments had been made so that after the Triennial Election of 1931
exactly one-third of the House would be renewable every three years.

The Fianna Fail Party obtained six seats : Mrs. Clarke and Messrs.
Comyn, Connolly, MacEllin, O’Doherty, and Robinson. Three of the
six had been members of the Ddil. Mrs. Clarke was first elected in the
Sinn F6in interest in 1921 ; at the general election of 1922 she stood
against the Treaty and was defeated; she was not a candidate in
1923 ; she was elected in June 1927, but lost her seat the following
September; and in April 1928 she was defeated again, this time at a
by-election. Mr. O’Doherty had been successful at the General Elec-
tions of 1918, 1921, 1922, and 1923, but was rejected in June 1927.
Mr. Robinson was elected in 1921 but defeated in 1922, when he
stood as an anti-Treaty candidate.

The Cosgrave party had four Senators : Dr. Gogarty and Messrs.
Milroy, Sears, and Wilson. The first-named was an outgoing Senator,
and the other three had all been members of the Ddil. Mr. Milroy
had represented Cavan from 1921 ; he had been one of the nine
members who had revolted from the Government party in November
1924 and had resigned their seats in order to found a new National
Party; at a by-election in North Dublin in March 1925, caused by
one of these resignations, he had stood against the Government and
had been defeated; and at the general election of June 1927 he had
stood for Cavan as an Independent and had again been defeated. Mr.
Sears had represented Mayo continuously from 1918 to 1927, but
was rejected by the electors in June of that year. Mr. Wilson had been
elected as a member of the Farmers’ Party in 1922 and 1923 ; he was
a defeated candidate at both the general elections held in 1927.

The sole representative of Labour was Mr. Thomas Johnson. He •
had been the leader of the Opposition throughout Mr. De Valera’s

* Outgoing Senator.

242 THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE SENATE

abstentionist period, from 1922 to the dissolution of August 1927;
but he had lost his seat at the general election held in the following
month.

The Independent Group returned four members : Messrs. Bagwell,
Brown, and Jameson and the McGillycuddy of the Reeks. All but the
last-named were outgoing Senators.

The list of nineteen was completed by four Independents : Messrs.
Byrne and Hooper, Sir Bryan Mahon, and Sir Walter Nugent. The
only newcomer to the Senate among these was Mr. Alfred Byrne,
who subsequently became Lord Mayor of Dublin. At the time of his
election to the Senate he was a member of the Ddil, having been a
successful candidate at every general election held from 1922 on-
wards. He had, of course, to resign his seat in the other House, in
accordance with the provision of the Constitution which prohibited
dual membership.

Thus the first election held under the new system showed that
Senator O’Farrell’s fears and Mr. De Valera’s hopes for the future of
the Senate had begun to be realized ; but the result would have been
worse if Mr. De Valera had carried his proposal that retiring Senators
should not be allowed to vote, and much worse if he had carried his
other proposal that the election should be by the Dail alone. Of the
twelve new Senators, no less than eight were ex-members of the Dail,
and all but one of them had been rejected by the electors — some of
them twice within a few months. It is reasonable to suppose that these
were elected wholly or mainly by D&il votes. One or two of them were
undoubtedly first-class men, but the rest could scarcely be so des-
cribed. In the nature of things, they were nearly all party politicians,
and they were coming to a Second Chamber in which independence of
thought and of action had been encouraged and where party politics
had been virtually unknown.

The future of the Senate was placed by the new system in the hands
of the two major political parties. One of these parties was, in the
words of one of its leaders, only ‘a slightly constitutional party’. It
aimed at abolishing the Senate, but meanwhile ‘let it be a Second
House under our thumb’. It was only to be expected that a party
holding these views would act accordingly in its choice of Senators ;
but the action of the Government party was less intelligible in send-
ing three newcomers to the House who had all been rejected at the
polls in the previous year. No criticism of the ability of any of these
men individually is intended or implied; but one could not look
forward without misgiving to a Senate containing increasing numbers

RETIREMENT OF LORD GLENAVY 243

not merely of party politicians but of party politicians who had lost
their seats in the other House.

During the short period covered by this chapter the work of revi-
sion of Government Bills went quietly on, the chief Bills amended
being the Currency Bill (thirty-three amendments) and the Forestry
Bill (twenty-one amendments). The Currency Bill authorized the issue
of a gold coinage, terminated the issue of bank notes by individual
banks, and empowered the issue of such notes by a central authority
styled the Currency Commission. The Forestry Bill, another of Mr.
Hogan’s beneficent measures, made provision for the afforestation of
the country and placed restrictions on the felling of trees. These two
Bills benefited considerably by the presence in the Senate of experts
in banking and agriculture, and all the amendments were accepted
by the D£il. Over the whole Second Triennial Period the standard of
revision set in the First Period was well maintained. About a hundred
non-Money Bills were received ; of these, one-third were amended,
the number of amendments being roughly four hundred, all but ten
of which were agreed to by the D&il.

Lord Glenavy, who was one of the Senators due to retire, had
decided not to seek re-election; and at the last meeting of the Senate
before the close of the period a resolution was passed expressing deep
appreciation of his services as Chairman during the six years’ exis-
tence of the House. The resolution was proposed by the Vice-Chair-
man, Senator Westropp Bennett, who referred to Lord Glenavy’s
legal eminence and his undoubted ability and tact in the Chair. He
continued:

‘We are an assembly of men of differing views; in some cases it is
hardly untrue to say that our outlook is diametrically opposed. Our
Chairman is a man whose views have always been well known and
forcibly and fearlessly expressed, but in this House we can say that,
however opposed we may be in opinion, we are all friends. I doubt if
there is in the world a House of Parliament where there is so real a
sense of unity and comradeship as in this Senate, and, if there is one
man to whose conduct this good will is more due than to another, it
is to our Chairman.

‘He came in a time of storm. When we first met, which of us knew,
when he returned to his home, that he would not find that, instead of
sitting at his cheerful hearth, he might warm his hands at his blazing
roof tree? Which of us knew that when he retired to rest he might
not wake to sounds of war and death? He leaves us in peace. He
leaves us having learned that our differences can be settled by argu-

244 THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE SENATE

ment, and that our controversial artillery, if not infallible, is at least
efficacious. But we must not forget that, in accepting the post of
Chairman, Lord Glenavy not only accepted the danger in which
every member of the Senate lived, but singled himself out for special
attack. I am glad to say that he did not suffer in person, but he did
not hesitate to run the extra danger. ’

Senators O’Farrell and Douglas joined in the tribute to the retiring
Chairman, and Lord Glenavy responded in a speech which expressed
his pride in the Senate’s work and which revealed a depth of feeling
that was obviously sincere. 1

There is no doubt that, of the sixty original members of the Senate,
Lord Glenavy was easily the most suitable Chairman. He was a man
of very strongly marked, and even dominating, personality, and his
prestige as a former Lord Chancellor stood him in good stead.
Actually, he had no special knowledge of constitutional law, and had
little regard for the niceties of parliamentary procedure; and, as he
had passed the allotted span at the time of his election, he could not
be expected to interest himself to any great extent in the intricacies of
these two subjects. But his clarity of mind and his power of expres-
sion remained in their full vigour, and in the legal examination of a
case and its subsequent exposition he had no superior. He necessarily
leaned to a considerable extent upon his officials, and it must be said
of him that he was always ready to listen to their advice and to
follow it if it commended itself to him, as it generally did. Even if he
approached a problem with his mind apparently made up, he was
always open to argument. If he sometimes seemed to resist, and per-
haps to dismiss the matter with a caustic witticism, it was usually
found later that he had been convinced. At an early stage, representa-
tions were privately made to him that there were certain matters of
etiquette which would make for decorum, but which ought not to be
incorporated in the Standing Orders, such as bowing to the Chair on
entering and leaving the Chamber. Lord Glenavy thought them
trivial, and said as much. But a few days later he asked the House to
adopt them, and he always saw to it that they were obeyed.

As he had not the Standing Orders at his fingers’ ends, ready to
apply them instantly the occasion arose, he was necessarily a some-
what unorthodox Chairman. But he meted out substantial justice to
every side, and the occasions on which the rights of a minority were
infringed were very few and never wilful. He had the great gif t of
restoring an atmosphere of good humour to the proceedings by a
1 Senate Debates, x, 1405-16.

APPRECIATION OF LORD GLENAVY 245

timely quip or jest. Once a measure which had provoked some heat
was followed on the Order Paper by the Wild Birds Bill. Lord Glenavy
announced this item by saying in his deep bass voice, and in tones of
obvious reproof, ‘Wild Birds!’ On another day, the sponsor of the
Barbers’ Registration Bill expressed the hope that it would not pro-
voke such acrimony as the Bill which preceded it, and Lord Glenavy
interjected, ‘But there will be more hair flying! ’

The Government’s attitude towards the Senate laid upon the Chair-
man many of the duties that would normally fall to a Leader of the
House, but it is probable that Lord Glenavy was not particularly
averse from them, as they gave him scope for the exercise of his some-
what paternal manner towards the members. He always encouraged
the younger men, whether Senators or officials, and he was not
sparing of praise for what he thought good work, whether it was done
in the Chamber or outside. He never hesitated to defend the con-
stitutional rights of the Senate against either the Government or the
DSil; and if at times he seemed supine in other directions, it must be
remembered that he was then approaching the end of a long career.

The high utility of the Senate during its first six years must be held
to be due in large measure to Lord Glenavy’s guidance. He did not
long survive his retirement, dying on the 22nd March 1931, in his
eightieth year.

PART IV

THE THIRD TRIENNIAL PERIOD
6th DECEMBER 1928 TO 5th DECEMBER 1931

'The group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain
and the Dominions ...are autonomous Communities within the British
Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any
aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common
allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British
Commonwealth of Nations’

The Balfour Declaration.

dyei Se ml vepl rrjv alpecriv ra>v apyovrov to alperwv
aiperovs iiriKiv Svvov, d yap rives avcrTrjvai Behovcri ml
perpioi to TrXyjdo s, del Kara rqv TOVTOiV alped-qcrovTdt (dovXr)-
criv.

(‘ The provision for the election of the rulers from among candidates
chosen at a preliminary election is dangerous, for even if a moderate
number of people choose to combine into a party, the elections will al-
ways go according to their wish.’)

Aristotle, Politics, II, iii, 13.

CHAPTER XV

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND
INTERNAL DISORDER

Growth of international status — The Briand-Kellogg Pacl—Fianna
Fail opposition in both Houses — The signature of the Optional Clause
— Senator Connolly's views— Election to the Council of the League of
Nations — Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation , 1929
— The Imperial Conference, 1930 — Report of the Conference approved
by Senate and Dail — The Statute of Westminster , 1931 — Attitude of
the Churchill group in the House of Commons — Mr, Cosgrove's caveat
— Mr. Baldwin resists the amendment of the Churchill group — Result
of the Statute of Westminster — The internal situation — Repeal of the
Public Safety Act — Growth of extremism — Intimidation of jurors and
witnesses— Murder and attempted murder— Attitude of Fianna Fail to
majority rule — A ‘ Dail of usurpers' — The Juries Protection Bill, 1929
— Opposition of Fianna Fail — The grave events of 1931 — Association
of Fianna Fail with Irish Republican Army— London newspaper inter-
view with Republican leader — Introduction of the Constitution {Amend-
ment No. 17) Bill — Its drastic character — Opposition of Fianna Fail —
Mr. De Valera's reference to the Irish Republican Army — His theory
of the continuity of British government in Ireland— His misquotation
of Lord Birkenhead — The Bill becomes law — Joint Pastoral of the
Hierarchy — The Irish Republican Army and other bodies declared to
be unlawful associations — Establishment of the Military Tribunal.

The period from 1929 to 1931 was characterized by two principal
features : on the one hand, an immense increase in the international
status of the Irish Free State, and in particular in its status as a
member of the British Commonwealth of Nations ; and, on the other
hand, a recrudescence of political unrest at home. It is somewhat of a
paradox that our development to full stature as one of the free nations

249

250 INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
of the world should have been accompanied by ceaseless attacks, both
verbal and physical, on the Treaty position, which was the /ora et
origo of that development.

In February 1929 the Treaty for the Renunciation of War (the so-
called Briand-Kellogg Pact of Paris), which had been signed on the
27th August 1928, was approved by formal resolution of both Houses
of Parliament. The debate in the Dail was a travesty of what a debate
on foreign affairs should be, and the resolution was passed in face of
the strenuous opposition of Mr. De Valera’s followers. 1 In the
Senate the resolution was passed without a division, but Senator
Connolly, the leader of the Fianna Fdil Party, took occasion to attack
the United States, which at that time was engaged in safeguarding
American and foreign lives and property during the guerrilla warfare
in Nicaragua. He said :

‘The imperial idea has been essentially developed by England and
copied by Germany, and is now being pursued ruthlessly by America.
It is rather extraordinary for us to sit here as a sober, intelligent
people to discuss the possibility of signing a Peace Pact even with
America, when we consider that at the present moment America is
pursuing an absolutely cold-blooded, ruthless policy of exploitation
and occupation of territory to which she is not entitled.’ 2

The Senate always provided a better forum than the Ddil for the
discussion of external affairs, and in the debate on the Appropriation
Bill, 1929, in a well-informed and well-argued speech. Senator
Johnson raised the question of the signature of the so-called Optional
Clause, that is, Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of
International Justice. The signature of this Article recognized as
compulsory the jurisdiction of the Court in regard to justiciable dis-
putes between signatory States. At that time, it was rumoured that
Great Britain and the other Commonwealth States would sign the
Optional Clause but reserve inter-Commonwealth disputes, and
Senator Johnson’s purpose was to elucidate the attitude of the
Government. The Minister for External Affairs (Mr. McGilligan)
made that attitude clear : ‘I do not see how we could possibly accept
any such reservation. . . . We will take, as we have always taken, quite
an independent point of view. It may happen that the result of our
taking an independent point of view will be action in harmony at
times with Great Britain or with a number of the Dominions of the
Commonwealth, but our decision is always come to on circumstances

1 Ddil Debates, xxviii, 277-320, 334-74.

2 Senate Debates , xi, 335.

ELECTION TO COUNCIL OF LEAGUE 251
that are peculiar and appropriate to this State.’ 1 Senator Connolly's
intervention in the same debate provided a contrast to that of Senator
Johnson. At that time the Irish Free State had so far progressed that
it had Ministers in Washington and some of the European capitals,
as well as a representative at Geneva. The leader of Mr. De Valera’s
party stated that he ‘would like to know how far we have any influ-
ence whatever in the League of Nations’ and hinted at ‘international
affairs in which we are involved as constituent members of this thing
called the British Empire’. 2 With regard to representation abroad, it
was ‘absolutely essential that the individuality of this country as a
State should be stressed’. He continued : ‘I am not fully satisfied that
that is the case. In the American activities I am afraid that we played
rather a bad second fiddle to the British administration. Whether
that is desirable or not I do not know. From my point of view it is
anything but desirable if we have to admit that we arc a subsidiary,
as it were, of the British Empire and that our consulate offices and
our administration, our plenipotentiary in Washington have to play
second fiddle to the representative of the British Legation [s/c]
there.’ 3 These objections were sufficiently met by the statement of
Mr. McGilligan which has been quoted. As between two nations,
of which one is a Great Power and the other is not, there must needs
be some differentiation of function. As between the diplomatic repre-
sentatives of those nations, the question of who is to play second
fiddle is one that does not normally arise between intellectual equals ;
but this reply is hardly likely to satisfy anyone who propounds such
a question.

Conformably with Mr. McGilligan’s prediction, the Irish Free
State signed the Optional Clause, without reservation, on the 14th
September 1929 at Geneva. Great Britain and the other members of
the Commonwealth signed it with a reservation as to inter-Com-
monwealth disputes. Resolutions of approval were passed by the
Ddil on the 26th February 1930 and by the Senate on the 7th May
1930.

In September 1930 the Irish Free State was elected to a non-perma-
nent seat on the Council of the League of Nations, in succession to
Canada. In putting forward their country as a candidate, the Govern-
ment stated that they did so on its merits, and not as a member of
any group or combination of States. Actually, Australia was the next
senior member of the Commonwealth, but it waived any claim it
might have had on that ground; and, in common with the other

1 Senate Debates, xii, 1426. - Ibid., xii, 1391. 9 Ibid., xii, 13S9.

252 INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
nations of the Commonwealth, including Great Britain, it ensured the
success of the Irish candidature by its support.

Within the purely Commonwealth sphere, the advances made are
almost too well known to require detailed recital. The Government’s
purpose was to consolidate the position achieved at the Imperial
Conference of 1926, and to apply in detail the principles laid down at
that Conference, with a view 'to the removal of even the smallest
formal restriction that remained on the absolute co-equality of the
other member States of the Commonwealth with Great Britain. This
detailed application was the task of the Conference on the Operation
of Dominion Legislation, which was held in 1929. It was attended by
the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. McGilligan) and the Attorney-
General (Mr. J. A. Costello, K.C.) and they gained all their objec-
tives except a relatively minor point concerning the Colonial Stock
Act. The Report of this Conference was duly approved by the Dail,
though it was opposed by the Fianna Fail Party, who challenged a
division upon it. 1 It was not submitted for the approval of the Senate.

At the full Imperial Conference of 1930 the recommendations con-
. tained in this Report were adopted almost in their entirety. By general
consent one of the three or four outstanding personalities at the
Conference was Mr. McGilligan; and he could claim with justifiable
pride that he had placed the coping stone on the edifice that had been
begun in 1926 by his friend and colleague Kevin O’Higgins. The Irish
Free State emerged, in constitutional theory as well as in actual
practice, as a completely autonomous nation; and the sole link be-
tween it and Great Britain was the King. But the King was to
function entirely, so far as Irish affairs were concerned, at the will of
the Irish Government.

Certain of the resolutions of the Imperial Conference of 1930 re-
quired to be given statutory effect by the Parliament at Westminster,
at the request of the six other member States of the Commonwealth
(Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Irish Free State,
and Newfoundland). Hence the Report of the Conference was pre-
sented to the D&il and the Senate, and a resolution was moved in
each House approving the Report and recommending the Executive
Council ‘to take such steps as they think fit to give effect thereto’.
The resolution was moved in the D&il by Mr. McGilligan, who ex-
pounded the implications of the Report in a masterly speech. The
debate was made the occasion of an attack by Fianna Fdil on Great
Britain, the British Empire, and the whole Commonwealth position;

1 DAil Debates, xxxiii, 2050-167, 2195-330.

THE STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER 253

and the references to the Royal Family by one of the leaders arc best
left unquoted. The party divided the House on the resolution, which
was carried by sixty-three votes to forty-six. 1 The debate in the Senate
was, as usual, on a higher plane, and the resolution was duly ap-
proved. 2

The Bill to implement the resolutions of the Imperial Conference
was entitled the Statute of Westminster, 1931. The most important
of its provisions were: (1) no law made by the Parliament of a
Dominion shall be void and inoperative on the ground that it is re-
pugnant to the law of England ; and the Parliament of a Dominion
shall have power to repeal or amend any existing or future Act of
Parliament of the United Kingdom in so far as the same is part of
the law of the Dominion ; (2) the Parliament of a Dominion has full
power to make laws having extra-territorial operation; (3) no future
Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to a Domi-
nion unless it is expressly declared in that Act that the Dominion has
requested and consented to its enactment. In the definition section of
the Bill the Irish Free State was defined as a Dominion.

On the 20th November 1931, on the Second Reading debate in the
House of Commons, Mr. Winston Churchill stated that, under the
Bill, it would be open to the Dail at any time to repudiate legally, with
the full sanction of law and parliamentary procedure, every provision
of the Treaty of 1921, including the Oath. Every Article of the Con-
stitution could be likewise repealed. In such a case, the Irish Free
State would have lost its foundations and have become a mere in-
expressible anomaly. He expressed his intention of moving an amend-
ment in Committee to safeguard the position from the British point
of view. 3 But the sense of the House was against Mr. Churchill. Mr.
Amery, who described himself as an old Unionist who had been in
favour of maintaining the Union by force, said that, once Ireland
had been set upon the footing of a Dominion, there was only one way
to treat it, and that was like the other Dominions. In everything that
he had had to do, whether as First Lord of the Admiralty or as
Secretary for Dominion Affairs, he had extended to his colleagues
from the Irish Free State the same complete confidence, loyalty, and
whole-hearted welcome that he extended to any other statesmen of
any other Dominion. ‘If you give,’ he added, ‘you must give gene-
rously, and without looking back.’ 4 This was true statesmanship,

1 Dail Debates, xxxix, 2290-332 and 2334-62.

- Senate Debates, xiv, 1599-1674. .....

3 House of Commons Debates, edix, 1 193, 1 194. * Ibid., cdix, ! *05.

254 INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
reminiscent of Burke's pregnant saying that ‘magnanimity in politics
is not seldom the truest wisdom

The day after Mr. Churchill's Second Reading speech in the House
of Commons, Mr. Cosgrave addressed a letter to the Prime Minister,
in the course of which he said: ‘I need scarcely impress upon you
that the maintenance of the happy relations which now exist between
our two countries is absolutely dependent upon the continued accep-
tance by each of us of the good faith of the other. This situation has
been constantly present to our minds, and we have reiterated time
and again that the Treaty is an agreement which can only be altered
by consent. I mention this particularly, because there seems to be a
mistaken view in some quarters that the solemnity of this instrument
in our eyes could derive any additional strength from a parliamentary
law. So far from this being the ease, any attempt to erect a Statute of
the British Parliament into a safeguard of the Treaty would have
quite the opposite effect here, and would rather tend to give rise in
the minds of our people to a doubt as to the sanctity of this instru-
ment.* 1 This letter was read to the House of Commons, but it proved
not to be necessary. Speaking on the restrictive amendment proposed
by the Churchill group, Mr. Stanley Baldwin warned the Commons
against thinking that they were dealing only with Ireland in these
matters. The Dominions were very' properly jealous of their status
and jealous of each other’s status. If honourable members thought
they could do something which offended Ireland, and was only going
to offend Ireland, they made the mistake of their lives. They were
going to offend not only the Irish Free State, but every Irishman in
Australia, in Canada, and in the United States of America. They
would offend every Dominion, even the most British of them; and
none would feel it more than Canada, which was often held up to
them as an example. It was because it might go out to the world that,
for all their talk, they did not trust the Dominions, and that Domi-
nion status meant nothing to them, that he opposed the amendment. 5

The proposed restrictive clause was defeated by the enormous
majority of 360 votes against 50, and the Statute of Westminster
received the Royal Assent on the 1 1th December 1931, six weeks be-
fore the dissolution which was the prelude to a change of government
in the Irish Free State. Thus, even the possibility of British inter-
ference was removed by the action of the British themselves ; and the
Treaty of 1921 was invested solely with the moral sanctity of an inter-
national agreement and no longer, on any view, with the legal sanc-
1 House of Commons Debates , cclx, 311. 2 Ibid., cclx, 346.

RECRUDESCENCE OF UNREST 255

tion of a British statute. No patriotic Irishman could wish it other-
wise. The resultant growth of a sense of political responsibility among
all sections of the community might be slow, but it would be inevit-
able. Grave mistakes might be made, but in the long run they would
be rectified. There remained the problem of the partition of Ireland,
which was an inheritance from history. Henceforward, the Govern-
ment and people of the Irish Free State would be completely free to
adopt the policy which best commended itself as likely to lead to an
ultimate, permanent union of Orange and Green. If one policy, even
pursued over a term of years, proved to be a failure, it could be
scrapped and another substituted for it. The closing days of 1931
thus marked the end of an epoch in Anglo-Irish affairs.

Unhappily, these triumphs (for they were no less) in the external
field were accompanied by a marked deterioration in the situation at
home. It will be recalled that, following the assassination of Kevin
O’Higgins, a stringent Public Safety Act had been passed, empower-
ing the setting up of military courts. These courts were never, in fact,
set up, and, owing principally to the agitation conducted against it
by Fianna Fdil, the Act was repealed as from the end of 1928. The
ranks of the irreconcilables were probably swollen to some extent as
a result of the conditions brought about by the world depression,
from which Ireland had not escaped. Men of avowed communistic
principles began to emerge as leaders of the movement, and an
organization was formed called Comhairle na Poblachta (the Council
of the Republic) to co-ordinate all Republican activities. A weekly
newspaper, entitled An Phoblacht ( The Republic), was published, and
claimed a large circulation; it was filled with letterpress of a viru-
lence hardly to be exceeded in the propagandist sheets of Balkan
countries. The physical force necessary to all revolutionaiy move-
• ments was supplied in this case by the Irish Republican Army.

One of the chief activities of. the irreconcilable, physical force
element was the intimidation of jurors and witnesses in criminal
cases, the result of which was that verdicts of guilty could often not
be obtained even in the clearest cases. Nor was such intimidation a
mere idle threat. In the month of August 1928 bunting was flown in
the streets of Dublin, and some business houses included the Union
Jack in the display. Organized raids were made on these premises, and
the obnoxious flag was tom down and taken away. Four young men
were charged with the larceny of a Union Jack exhibited by an in-
surance company. They were found guilty, but were not sentenced to
any term of imprisonment, being released immediately. One of the

256 INTERNAL DISORDER

officials of the company, Mr. Albert Henry Armstrong, who had
been present at the time of the raid, was a witness at the trial, but
his evidence was not material. On the night of the 20lh February 1929
Mr. Armstrong was murdered by armed men outside his home in
Dublin. None of them was apprehended.

On the 3rd December 1928 a man named Hcaly, who was charged
with shooting at two members of the Civic Guard, on two different
occasions, with intent to do grievous bodily harm, was found guilty
by the unanimous verdict of twelve jurors; and lie was sentenced by
Mr. Justice Sullivan (now the Chief Justice) to five years’ penal servi-
tude. The names of the twelve jurors were circulated far and wide.
One of them was a Mr. John White, who lived in Terenure, a suburb
of Dublin. A party of armed men called at his home after dark on the
23rd January 1929 and shot him in the stomach. Fortunately, they
did not succeed in murdering him; lie was rushed to hospital,
gravely wounded, but survived. The Government at once gave the
eleven other jurymen an armed guard for their protection.

The issue of An Phoblacht dated the 23rd February 1929 contained
two references to this attempted murder. The first is as follows: ‘In
Maryboro’ Jail, Hogan and Con Hcaly are being treated as ordinary
convicts. The slave-minded jurors who convicted them arc respon-
sible, and arc paying for their treachery', one lying in a Dublin hospi-
tal, the others having to be protected by England’s Secret Service
men.’ The other is a paragraph headed ‘ Denial of a Rumour’. * We
have heard that a brother of Mr. White, of Nevada, Terenure, who
was shot last month, is spreading a rumour around town to the
effect that Mr. John White was not on the jury that convicted Con
Healy and sent him to penal servitude for five years. This is not a
fact. He was on that jury, and well he knows it.’

In its issue of the same date another weekly newspaper, the Nation ,
which was regarded as the organ of Mr. Dc Valera’s party at that
time, contained the following in a column headed ‘Prisoners’ Notes’,
which was one of the more or less regular features of the paper: ‘If
anyone wants an amusing sight let him venture out on a cold, wet
day and view sad and shady-Iooking C.I.D. men standing outside the
houses and also the business premises where the jurymen live or are
employed who were cowardly and misguided enough to convict of
treason that Tipperary Volunteer, Con Hcaly, who has devoted his
whole life to unselfish service of the nation, and thus handed him
over to British vengeance — five years in Maryborough hell.’

This extract raises the question of the attitude of Fianna Fdii at

FIANNA FAIL ATTITUDE TO STATE 257

that time towards majority rule and the legitimacy of the Parliament
of the Irish Free State. Reference has been made in a previous
chapter to a speech made by Mr. De Valera, in which he said that
those who continued on in the organization which he and his fol-
lowers had left could claim exactly the same continuity as he and his
followers had claimed up to 1925. That speech was delivered less than
a month after the murder of Mr. Armstrong (14th March 1929). The
leader of the Labour Party (Mr. O’Connell) said that he took Mr.
De Valera to mean that the legitimate government of the country
were people outside the Dail; but he invited correction by saying
that he might be wrong in this conclusion. Mr. De Valera did not
then correct him, however; but more than two and a half years after-
wards (14th October 1931) he referred to the matter and stated that
Mr. O’Connell had misinterpreted him. 1 In the circumstances, it is
desirable to quote from the editorial of the Nation at the time (23rd
March 1929), which took Mr. De Valera’s speech for its subject and
which interpreted it to the public.

‘On the one hand, the Fianna Fill Party had no wish to condone
or to show that they condoned brutality of any sort; on the other
hand, they did not wish to associate themselves with the equally
brutal, inefficient, useless methods of repression adopted by the Free
State Government. What had to be done was to explain these out-
bursts of violence, explicable (if at all) only under existing circum-
stances when a whole section of the community is wrongfully de-
barred from taking its legitimate share in the public life of the
country. ...

‘Mr. De Valera very properly seized the opportunity of explaining
once more the position of Fianna Fdil in the Free State Assembly.
His sincerity was patent. We entered a faked parliament which we
believed in our hearts to be illegitimate and we still believe it; and we
faced a junta there which we did not regard as the rightful Govern-
ment of this country. We did not respect, nor do we now, such a
Government or such a Parliament. . . . Our presence in the “Dail”
of usurpers is sheer expediency, nothing else. When we started a new
Republican Party we did not, nor do we now, differ from Sinn F&n
in principle or aim. We still respect the scruples that prevented some
Sinn F&ners from walking our road. We only thought their purely
negative methods too risky, not aggressive enough to save the Re-
publican movement from threatening disaster. We have not given up
our creed nor our ideals; we stand, as always, for the independence

1 Dail Debates, xl, 54.

258 INTERNAL DISORDER

of Ireland. The Cosgravc Government may be. and is, in spite of us,
the de facto Government of our country ; but for us it will never be
the deftre Government. We accept the principle of majority rule and
for the sake of public order we arc obliged to recognize their de facto
Government — but for what it is.’

To meet the situation caused by the threatened breakdown of the
jury system, the Government introduced a Juries Protection Bill on
the 1st May 1929. This measure provided for the secret empanelling
of juries, majority verdicts of nine out of twelve, imprisonment for
refusal to recognize the court, prohibition of the publication of jurors’
names, penalties for the intimidation of jurors, and other matters.
The Bill was fiercely opposed by Fianna Fail and had to be passed
under the closure. On the Second Rcadine Mr. De Valera said that

nobody on his side of the House attempted in any way whatever to
condone the two recent crimes, but his speech as a whole was devoted
to the thesis that the Cosgrave Administration represented a continua-
tion of British government in Ireland ; oddly enough in these circum-
stances, he asserted that the Bill went ‘back behind Magna ChartaV
Referring (presumably) to the Irish Republican Army, he said:
‘Because they [the Cosgravc Government] turned their backs on
what they stood for a few years ago they will not allow their prejudice
to let them know that there arc a few men who did not turn their
backs on these principles, and who arc struggling, rightly or wrongly,
either supported by the majority of the people of Ireland or not sup-
ported, to secure this objective [the Republic].’ 2

The operation of the Act was limited to two years, but at the end
of that time it was necessary to continue it for a like period. Indeed,
the time was approaching when trial by jury for eases of alleged
political crime would have to be abolished altogether. The following
are among the grave events which occurred in the year 1931.

30th January. A young man named Patrick Carroll was found in a
Dublin lane with his head shattered. On the 14th February An
Phoblacht published an editorial, headed ‘Executed by I.R.A.’, in
which murders of this type were explained and justified. Carroll was
a member of the Irish Republican Army, and had been found by that
organization to be giving information to the police.

20th March. Superintendent Curtin, of the Civic Guard, was shot
through the heart from behind a hedge at 10.15 p.m. outside the gate
leading to his home in Tipperary. He had conducted a local prosecu-
tion for illegal drilling a few days earlier. The weekly organ of the
1 Dai! Debates, xxix, 1562. 2 Ibid., xxix, 1576.

GRAVE EVENTS OF 1931 259

Fianna Fail Party, the Nation, condemned this murder in the
strongest terms in an editorial in its issue of the 28th March ; but
An Phoblacht of the same date contained the following, under the
heading, ‘Superintendent Curtin’s Death — Its True Perspective’:
‘The shooting of Superintendent Curtin will, no doubt, be made an
excuse for another attempt at the Last Conquest of Ireland, just as
was the shooting of Kevin O'Higgins . . . . Like his English predeces-
sors, O’Duffy [the Chief Commissioner of Police] has to admit that
he “can see no hope for the country’s future” because “murderers
are being shielded by the people”, who refuse “to take a bold and
courageous stand in the interest of order, peace and progress”
(British style!).’ It also castigated the Archbishop of Cashel (Most
Rev. Dr. Harty) for his ‘impertinence’ in condemning the murder.
The reference to Kevin O’Higgins is not surprising, as the paper had
described him much earlier (17th November 1928) as ‘one of the
most blood-guilty Irishmen in our generation ’.

5th April. Approximately a hundred men were found drilling at
Philipstown, King’s County, under the leadership of an escaped
prisoner.

23rd April. Two young undergraduates of Trinity College, Messrs.
Rupert Young and George Johnson, were going for a moonlight
walk in the Dublin mountains, at a spot known appropriately enough
as the Hell Fire Club, when they inadvertently crossed the path of
men engaged in manoeuvres. They were called upon to halt but did
not do so, thinking the matter was a joke. Mr. Young received a
bullet through the lower part of his nose, and another grazed his body
but was fortunately deflected by a button. Mr. Johnson was not hit.

10th June. A detective post which had been established near the
Hell Fire Club as a result of this outrage discovered an ammunition
dump in the form of a concrete chamber containing rifles, revolvers,
machine-guns, and bombs, the entrance being guarded by a trap
mine. An Phoblacht, in its issue of the 20th June, admitted the cap-
ture, but boasted that it was only one of hundreds existing through-
out the thirty-two counties of Ireland. There was a by-election pend-
ing at the time, and on the day after the discovery (11th June) Mr.
Daniel Buckley, then a Fianna Fail back-bencher but afterwards His
Majesty’s Representative in the Irish Free State, said sarcastically ;
‘In view of the fact that the Hell Fire Club dump dope will not be
sufficient to carry off this by-election, would it not be well to organize
a few more shooting outrages?’ 1

1 Ddit Debates, xxxix, 166.

260 INTERNAL DISORDER

21st June. It was the annual custom of Fianna Fi'iil and the Re-
publicans to hold pilgrimages to the grave of Wolfe Tone at Bodens-
town, County Kildare, each claiming to be the true inheritor of
Tone's gospel. In 1931 these events took place on the date mentioned
(Sunday) ; but it is noteworthy that the pilgrimage of the Republicans
and of Mr. Dc Valera’s followers was a combined one on this occa-
sion. In the ‘Orders for the Day’ published in An Plioblacht for the
20th June a place in the procession was accorded to Fianna Ftiil. At
the request of the Government, the railway company cancelled the
special trains arranged for the occasion, and military evolutions were
prevented by the Civic Guards. Nevertheless, the demonstration was
held, and members of Fianna Fail marched in company with mem-
bers of the Irish Republican Army and other bodies. An oration at
the grave side was delivered by Mr. Pcadar O’Donnell, an extremist
leader, after which a wreath was laid on Tone’s grave by Mr. Dc
Valera. 1

ISth July. Warders from Mountjoy Prison were attacked, whilst
off duty, by armed men, and one of them was handcuffed to an iron
rail and chained by the neck and legs.

20th July. Two men, representing themselves to be detectives,
called at night to the farmhouse in County Tipperary' where a young
farm labourer named John Ryan was sleeping. Me accompanied
them at their request, and his dead body was later found, riddled
with bullets, at a cross roads, with a notice beside it. ‘Spies and in-
formers, beware! — I.R.A.* He had been a witness in the same drilling
case as had led to the murder of Superintendent Curtin, and he had
refused to commit perjury',

24th August. A long account appeared in an English daily news-
paper of an interview given to its special correspondent by Mr. Frank
Ryan at the offices of An Plioblacht, which was quoted in full by Mr.
Cosgrave in the Dail. 2 Mr. Ryan objected to the use of words like
‘murder’ and ‘assassination’ when referring to the shooting of un-
armed men. ‘The shootings to which you referred were not murder;
they were acts of war. You must remember this, the Irish Republican
Army is still at war with Britain. We regard the Free State Ministers
merely as the agents of Britain.’ As for Superintendent Curtin, he
‘ exceeded his duty. He went out of his way to persecute the I.R.A. . . .
The Civic Guard have no right to interfere in matters that do not
concern them. If they ask for trouble they must not be surprised if

1 Irish Independent, 22 June 1931.

2 Dail Debates , xl, 34-6, from which the above extracts have been taken.

MR. FRANK RYAN AND ‘ACTS OF WAR’ 261

they get it.’ John Ryan, the Tipperary farm labourer, ‘gave evidence
for Curtin. He was nothing else than a traitor. Then there was Carroll,
the young man found dead in a County Dublin lane. This is the truth
about him. He was an agent provocateur

Mr. Ryan continued: ‘Military organization cannot tolerate spies
or traitors. But let me tell you this — these things are not decided
lightly. Decisions are made only with very, very great reluctance.
Traitors must be punished, but there are fewer in our ranks than
anywhere else.’

The interviewer invited Mr. Ryan to state how the Irish Republican
Army proposed to overthrow the Government, and he replied: ‘All
I am going to say is this. One of these days there will be crowds in
the street, and they will not be dispersed by baton charges. You know
the old saying that England’s difficulty is Ireland’s opportunity.
England will be engaged in another great war soon. Then she will
try to take advantage of the provisions of the Treaty for garrisoning
ports in Ireland. That will be the end of England’s rule in Ireland.’

No government deriving its- authority from the will of the people
would deserve to survive if it lacked the courage to cope with the
challenge disclosed by these hard facts. Trial by jury had broken
down. Trial by the existing judges without a jury was impracticable;
the judges had been appointed in accordance with the provisions of
the Constitution, and the conditions of their appointment did not
include adjudication in criminal matters on questions of fact. Mr.
Cosgrave stated that, in connection with the Public Safety Act passed
in 1927, he had been informed by at least two of the judges of the
Supreme Court that they would require to relinquish their office if
they were called upon to act as a court in such matters. 1 They were,
of course, perfectly within their rights. Accordingly, the only method
of trial left was that by military tribunal. Such a method must always
be repugnant to the constitutionally minded ; but, so far as the mem-
bers of the Irish Republican Army were concerned, since they claimed
to be soldiers they could not logically object to being tried by soldiers.

Immediately on the reassembly of the DAil after the summer recess
(14th October 1931) the Government introduced the Constitution
(Amendment No. 17) Bill, which inserted a new Article 2a in the
Constitution. Though in form Article 2a was an amendment of the
Constitution, in fact it was a Public Safety Bill of a most stringent
character, containing thirty-four sections and an Appendix. A mili-
tary tribunal of five members was empowered to be set up, for dealing

1 Ddil Debates, xl, 45.

262 INTERNAL DISORDER

with political crime, and the powers conferred on it (including the
infliction of the death penalty) exceeded anything known in Ireland
in modern times. There was no appeal from its decisions, but the
Executive Council might pardon persons convicted by it and remit
their punishment. The Executive Council might, by Order, declare
associations to be unlawful, and the issue of such an Order was to be
conclusive evidence that they were unlawful. Wide powers of arrest
and detention were conferred on the police.

It was a Bill of which the introduction could be explained only by
necessity and of which the operation could be justified only by the
exercise of moderation. In spite of domiciliary visits, it was supported
solidly by the Independent members of the Dail and the rank and file
of the Government party, as well as by two outstanding representa-
tives of Labour (Messrs. Anthony and Morrissey), who were subse-
quently expelled from their party for voting for it. The Bill was
strenuously opposed by Fianna Fail, but. in view of the subsequent
use made by the Fianna Fail Government of the military tribunal set
up under this constitutional amendment, the arguments they ad-
duced have lost any force they might have had. Mr. Dc Valera’s
contribution to the debate was long and characteristic. The Govern-
ment was imitating the activities of Sir Hamar Greenwood (Chief
Secretary during the Black and Tan period), instead of getting to the
root of the evil by abolishing the Oath. He would have been on firmer
ground if lie had produced some evidence that the removal of the
Oath would have made any difference whatever in the attitude of the
Irish Republican Army towards the institutions of the State. He
stated, with obvious sincerity, that his party did not stand for crime,
and made the remarkable admission that ‘if there is no authority in
this House to rule, then there is no authority in any part of the country
to rule’. 1 But this part of his speech, which was short, was largely
negatived by his reference to the long catalogue of crime read out by
Mr. Cosgrave as ‘incidents’. 2 He maintained that the ordinary law
was quite sufficient to deal with them, ignoring the fact that the per-
petrators had never been brought to justice. At a later stage, lie
referred to the Irish Republican Army as follows: ‘These arc the
people who were ready to give everything that they had for Ireland,
and well we know it, and now they are being deserted by the majority
of their people. . . . These men arc misguided, if you will, but they
were brave men, anyhow; let us at least have for them the decent
respect that we have for the brave. They have done terrible things
1 Dail Debates, xl, 54. 2 Ibid., xl, 51.

MR. DE VALERA ON LORD BIRKENHEAD 263

recently I admit, if they are responsible for them, and I suppose they
are. Let us appeal to them and ask them in God’s name not to do
them.’ 1

It is perhaps permissible to point out that Messrs. Armstrong,
Carroll, Curtin, Ryan, White, and Young were all shot after dark;
that all of them were unarmed ; and that the degree of risk incurred
by their assailants is indicated by the fact that none of them was ever
apprehended.

. Mr. De Valera’s main thesis was that the Cosgrave Government
were merely the successors of the British Government, and in support
of this thesis he said : ‘The situation that was brought about here was
thoroughly understood by the British when they forced the Treaty
on us. Lord Birkenhead, in asking that that Treaty be accepted,
appealed to his brothers in the House of Lords and said to them:
“By all means accept this. The unruly Irish will in future be put
down; they will be put down by other Irishmen with an economy of
English lives. We will hand over to this new body of Irishmen who
are prepared to follow our dictation and work upon the lines of our
policy the task of trying to stifle those who want the complete inde-
pendence of their country.” ’ z The fact that these words are placed
within inverted commas suggests that they are a quotation from a
speech by Lord Birkenhead, in which he spoke of ‘an economy of
English lives’. They are, of course, a travesty of what he said, and the
occasion was not one on which he was asking the House of Lords to
pass the Treaty. As the occasion was important, it will be specified;
the exact quotation will then be given.

In the months of February and March 1922 the British Army and
police were evacuating the country, the Treaty having been accepted
by the Dail. The anti-Treaty section of the Irish Republican Army
were attacking them, so as to stop the evacuation and smash the
Treaty. Mr. De Valera’s speeches in Munster were encouraging the
Irregulars in this course. For example, on the 16th ’March, at
Dungarvan, he said : ‘The Treaty . . . barred the way to independence
with the blood of fellow-irishmen. It was only by civil war after this
that they could get their independence. ... If you don't fight
to-day, you will have to fight to-morrow; and I say, when you
are in a good fighting position, then fight on.’ 3 A number of British
officers and men were killed. In particular, on the 2nd March
the Royal Irish Constabulary evacuated the police barracks at

i Dad Debates, xl, 298. - Ibid., xi, 54.

3 Irish Independent, 17 March 1922.

264 INTERNAL DISORDER

Tipperary, handing them over to the authorities of the Provisional
Government; they were fired upon by the Irregulars, Mead Con-
stable Davis, a man of very long service, being killed and three others
being seriously wounded. Lord Carson put down a question in the
House of Lords with reference to this outrage, and in his reply on
the 8th March the Lord Chancellor said : 'All this, of course, is full
of anxiety for every one of us. but, if I am asked for my perfectly
honest opinion, it is this, that bad and anxious as the situation is, I
cannot see that it is not a gain that you have in Southern Ireland
men who have hitherto been organized against us now, as far as one
can see, honestly attempting to carry out their duly and their re-
sponsibility, and to put down this movement in the South of Ireland.
I say plainly that, having once satisfied myself that we have treated
them properly, I would far rather that they were undertaking that
task than that we were, and 1 believe that if that task is effectively and
successfully carried out by them the fact that it should be done by
them and not by us will have resulted in an economy of English lives,
and will also in the end conduce to permanent peace in Ireland.’ 1 Lord
Birkenhead’s motives in signing the Treaty, and in commending it to
the House of Lords, arc of no particular interest to Irishmen, who arc
concerned only with the instrument itself and with the benefits which
accrued from it. But it will be seen that what he said in regard to ‘an
economy of English lives’, and the circumstances in which he said it,
are very different from what was stated by Mr. Dc Valera.

The Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Bill became law on the
17th October 1931, and on the same day the Executive Council pro-
mulgated the Constitution (Operation of Article 2a) Order, which
brought the provisions of the Act into force. It was commonly re-
ported that on the same night there was an exodus of the extremists
from Ireland. On the following day (Sunday, 18th October), a Joint
Pastoral of the archbishops and bishops of Ireland was read in all
the Catholic churches. This referred to the aims of the Irish Republi-
can Army and of Saor £ire (the Republican Communist Organiza-
tion) and stated that ‘it is our duty to tell our people plainly that the
two organizations to which we have referred, whether separate or in
alliance, are sinful and irreligious, and that no Catholic can lawfully
be a member of them’. The Hierarchy also pointed out that the
country had a democratic government, and that no-one had a right
to seek to overthrow that government by force of arms; and they
were careful to stress the fact that this was true not only of the exist-
1 House of Lords Debates , xlix, 381, 382.

THE HIERARCHY AND THE MORAL LAW 265

mg government but of any successor to it, so long as that successor
secured the support of a majority of the people by constitutional
means. 1 This clear and accurate statement of the moral law ought to
have been sufficient to protect the archbishops and bishops from the
charge that they were acting as partisans in politics on the side of Mr.
Cosgrave and against Mr. De Valera. But unhappily this proved not
to be the case.

On the 20th October the Government issued the Constitution
(Declaration of Unlawful Associations) Order, 1931, under the powers
conferred by the new Act. Twelve organizations were declared to be
illegal, including the Irish Republican Army, Saor £ire, and the
Friends of Soviet Russia. Persons awaiting trial were brought before
the Military Tribunal, which for the most part imposed light sen-
tences, many prisoners being released on undertaking to cease to be-
long to illegal organizations.

1 Irish Independent , 19 October 1931.

CHAPTER XVI

PARTY POLITICS AND THE SENATE

Gradual growth of a party system — Formation of a Government
party — Political alignments — Election of Chairman and Vice-Chair-
man — Bill to make Senators eligible for the Executive Council— Mr.
Cosgrove's half-hearted advocacy — Amendment carried limiting Senate
to one member of the Council — Opposition in the Ddil-—Fianna Fail
abuse of the Senate — Senator O'Farrell on the Bill — Change in the
method of filling casual vacancies — The Seanad Bye-Elections Bill-
Period for constitutional amendments without a referendum extended -
front eight to sixteen years — Absence of party rigidity — The Juries
Protection Bill — The Constitution {Amendment No. 17) Bill in the
Senate — Its passage under the guillotine — The Chairman's position —
The Third Triennial Election — Defects of the system again exemplified—
Result of the election — Increasing number of Senators of a political type.

JF or the first six years of its existence the functions of the Senate
had been discharged virtually on a non-party basis. There was a small
Labour Party of five members, but they had no formal leader. The
Labour movement never elected any but capable men to the Second
Chamber, and one or two of them were first-class politicians in the
best sense of the word. Hence the Labour Senators were not mere
echoes of their colleagues in the other House, and they were a group
of individuals holding similar views rather than 'a party. There was
also an Independent Group, under the chairmanship of Senator
Jameson. This was a body of Senators who habitually consulted to-
gether in regard to the measures which were to come before the
House; but they were not bound by any pledge, and they frequently
voted on opposite sides in divisions. Though the majority were ex-
Unionists, this group had other adherents, such as Senators Douglas
and Mrs. Stopford Green. It was exclusively a Senate group, and

266

POSITION OF PARTIES 267

no member of the Ddil belonged to it or attended its meetings. Lastly
there was a curiously named and largely informal Progressive Party,
which was no more than a loose combination of about fifteen Senators
united in a tacit agreement to support the Cosgravc Government
against other quarters of the House, but the individual members of
which were free to vote against the Ministry on such occasions as
they thought fit.

The circumstances of the Triennial Election of 192S brought about
a change, since the entry of members of Fianna Fail into the Senate,
as well as of ex-members of the Dail on the other side, imported
something like a party atmosphere into the proceedings. The change
was gradual, however. Probably the great majority of Senators re-
garded a Senate party system with dislike, and there was still, in
general, an absence of strict party ties. Moreover, the necessity for
party discipline did not arise, since Fianna Fail, even if allied with
Labour, was still much too small numerically to exercise any influ-
ence in the division lobby.

There had never been a Cosgrave party, but at the beginning of
this period steps were immediately taken to form one. A circular in-
viting adherents was sent out by Senators MacKcan and Milroy. and
the result was the formation of a party under the chairmanship of
Senator Dr. O’Sullivan. 1 It drew most of its members from the so-
called Progressive Party, which now ceased to function. The new
party was not strictly regimented, and it had no leader, Dr. O’Sullivan
being merely the chairman at its meetings. It is not possible to state
accurately its strength at this time, but it probably numbered nine-
teen members.

Of the other parties or groups, the Fianna Fail Party of six newly
elected members was immediately joined by Senator Colonel Moore,
who had belonged to Professor Magcnnis’s defunct Clann Eircann ;
and Senator Joseph Connolly was elected leader of the party. Labour
was re-inforced by Senator Johnson, formerly the chairman of the
party in the Dail, where he had been the most industrious private
member and the best parliamentarian; but he joined his five Senate
colleagues on an equal footing, and the Labour Party continued
without a leader. The new system of election had told heavily, and
would continue to tell heavily, against the Independent Group; and
at the outset of this period it numbered twelve members.

The composition of the Senate might therefore be summarized as
follows ;

1 Irish Times, 2 January 1929.

268

PARTY POLITICS AND THE SENATE

Cosgrave Party

Fianna Fail

Independent Group

Independents

Labour Party

Chairman

The fifteen Independents were persons of the most diverse views, and
the majority were men of distinction. They included General Sir
Bryan Mahon and General Sir William Hickie, who were soldiers
rather than politicians; the Earl of Granard and Sir Thomas
Esmonde; Mr. Patrick Hooper, a former editor of the Freeman's
Journal; Mr. Alfred Byrne, subsequently Lord Mayor of Dublin; Sir
Walter Nugent, the chairman of the Great Southern Railways Com-
pany ; and Sir John Keane, an ex-Unionist landowner. The system of
election by Dail and Senate was, of course, fatal to the future chances
of such men. Four of the Independents, Senators Mrs. Wyse Power,
Dowdall, Linehan, and Laurence O’Neill, voted increasingly with
Fianna Fail, and the two first-named subsequently joined that
party. The other Independents in general supported the Cosgrave
Party.

The Chairman and Vice-Chairman were elected at the first meeting
of the Senate held after the commencement of the period (12th
December 1928). Senator Westropp Bennett, the previous Vice-
Chairman, was elected Chairman by 41 votes against 12 votes cast
for Senator Douglas, who had been Vice-Chairman from 1922 to
1925. There were three candidates for the Vice-Chairmanship : Sena-
tor Kenny (Cosgrave party), Senator O’Farrell (Labour party), and
Senator Colonel Moore (Fianna Fail). Colonel Moore was elimi-
nated in a preliminary poll, and in a straight vote between the two
other candidates Senator Kenny was elected by 27 votes to 21. All
the newly elected members of Fianna Fail abstained from voting
after their own candidate had been defeated ; and the unfortunate
split in the Labour Party which had cost it a seat at the Triennial
Election manifested itself in the action of the two Transport Union
Senators, who voted against Senator O’Farrell in both contests. 1
Senator Kenny died during the Triennial Period (22nd April 1931),
and his successor in the Vice-Chair was elected on the 6th May 1931.
There were again three candidates, Colonel Moore was again elimi-

1 Senate Debates, xi, 8-17.

SENATE AND MINISTERIAL OFFICE 269

natcd, and Senator P. J. Hooper (Independent) was elected by 2$
votes to 18 over Senator M. F. O’Hanlon (Cosgravc Party). 1 Senator
Hooper died on the following 6th September, and for the short un-
expired term of the Triennial Period the vacancy in the Vice-Chair-
manship was not filled .

The four remaining Bills to implement the recommendations of the
Joint Committee on the constitution and powers of the Second
Chamber all came before the Senate in 1929. Two of them, dealing
with Money Bills and the Initiation of Bills in the Senate, arc men-
tioned in the chapters on Money Bills and on the Formalities and
■ Machinery of Parliament (Chapters XXXII and XXXIII). The two
others are therefore all that we need consider here. One of them was
concerned with the eligibility of Senators for membership of the
Executive Council, and the other altered the method of filling casual
vacancies.

It will be remembered that the question of opening the Executive
Council to Senators had been debated at some length in 1927, but
with no result. The Joint Committee which reported in May 1928
recommended that the existing disqualification of members of the
Senate for the Executive Council should be removed ; and the Con-
stitution (Amendment No. 15) Bill, as introduced in the Dail, pro-
posed that members of both Houses should be equally eligible for the
Executive, except that the President, the Vice-President, and the
Minister for Finance should be members of the Dail. But Mr. Cos-
grave commended the Bill to the Dail in a half-hearted way, and he
left it to a free vote of the House.' He said : ‘My own view is that the
Dail might reasonably consider a Bill which would give power to
have one Senator appointed as a member of the Executive Council.
... I do not know if the particular recommendation in this case will
meet with the approval of the Ddil. ... I do not think it is at all likely
within the next twenty years, even if this Bill were passed into law,
that any more than one — possibly not even one — member of the
Senate would be cither nominated or accepted by the Ddil as a mem-
ber of the Executive.’ 2 On the Committee Stage Mr. Cosgravc intro-
duced an amendment, providing that not more than one Senator
might be a member of the Executive Council ; and the Bill in this form
was passed by the Ddil.

Even this limited and purely theoretical extension was strenuously
resisted by the Opposition, and leading members of Mr. De Valera’s
party used the Bill as a text for the denigration of the Senate. The
1 Senate Debates , xiv, 893-6. 2 Ddil Debates, xxviii, 1291, 1292.

270 PARTY POLITICS AND THE SENATE

following quotations are all from the speeches of Deputies who sub-
sequently held office in Mr. De Valera’s Administration.

In his speech on the Second Reading Mr. Lemass had excepted
from his strictures the six Senators who had been elected by his
party, and on the Committee Stage he said :

‘Is there a single member of the Senate whose inclusion in the
Executive Council would justify the cost of printing this Bill? I can-
not think of one Of course, I am now excluding from considera-

tion the six just men to whom I already had occasion to make refe-
rence, like the cities in Bible history. But six just men do not redeem
the Senate. I think it is extremely unlikely that the Executive Council
would be thinking of any one of these six individuals as a colleague
in the Executive Council. It must be some one of the remaining
fifty-four, and there is not a single one of the remaining fifty-four
capable, in my opinion, of acting as a member of the D&il, much less
as a member of the Executive Council, although I will admit that it
is possibly easier to get members of the Executive Council than it is
to get members of the Dail ; the standard of knowledge and ability
is not so high, and the entrance examination is possibly easier.’ 1

Mr. MacEntee made the same point : ‘I cannot see that any mem-
ber of the Senate, with notable exceptions — those who, because of
their own political principles, would not be included in the present
Executive Council — could temper that body with wisdom, and I
certainly cannot see that any Senator would vitiate it with folly,
because its folly is at present all-sufficient.’ 2

Mr. Hugo Flinn carried the vituperation a stage further. He des-
cribed the procedure in the Senate, and also gave a novel interpreta-
tion of the working of the British political system.

‘The procedure [in the Senate] is that the bell rings for prayer.
They come in, they ask what division they are to go into ; then they
ask what it is about, and then they legislate with their feet. It is the
only part of their bodies or minds which they are accustomed to use,
and they can use them in relation to a Senatorial Executive Officer in
exactly the same way as they use them in relation to a non-Senatorial
Executive Officer. ... In another country where they have a House
of Commons and a House of Lords, . . . those two Houses are used
for certain purposes. Where a Minister has become ineffective or in-
efficient, he is sent to the House of Lords. That is a way of getting
rid of him. Another use that is made of it — and this may become part
of the machinery in this particular case — is where someone who has
1 Dail Debates, xxviii, 1811. 2 Ibid., xxviii, 1817.

DENIGRATION OF SENATE 271

not been elected is wanted in by the existing Executive in the Parlia-
ment. Someone is persuaded to go to the House of Lords and provide
a vacancy. We are improving on that machinery*. We arc in the posi-
tion under this Constitution amendment not merely to make a Sena-
tor a member of the Executive Council, but to pick up anybody in the
street we want so long as there is a majority in the Senate and the
Dail of a particular party, and put him straight into the Executive
Council. All we have got to do is to arrange that one of the
people whom, for one reason or another, you have sent to the local
House of Lords is to cease to be a member of the local House of
Lords.’ 1

These extracts have been necessary because they convey better
than any mere description some idea of the attitude of Mr. Dc
Valera’s leading followers towards the Second Chamber at that time.
Whether or not this attitude was the result of an inferiority complex,
it is important in view of what subsequently occurred. It is clear that,
if ever Mr. De Valera got into power, the Senate was doomed ; and.
whatever arguments might then be adduced for its abolition, the
psychological factor would play a considerable part.

The value of the constitutional change effected by the Bill was
justly summed up by Senator O’Farrcll when the Bill reached the
Senate, where it was passed unamended. He said :

‘I look upon the proposal not as a privilege conferred upon the
Senate so much as a constitutional concession to the Dail. No Presi-
dent in the future will include in his Cabinet a member of the Senate
unless he believes that by so doing he will improve his Cabinet, and
even then he must have the definite approval of the other House.
There is nothing very novel or very revolutionary' in this. In practi-
cally all modern Parliaments, particularly in countries where the
parliamentary tradition is very much more developed than it is here,
and where the democratic tradition is at least as good. Governments
draw on their Second Chambers for Ministers of State with very' little
reservation. But in actual practice, as the President was careful to
remind the Dail, the power which the Bill confers is likely to be only
a very theoretical power for quite a long time to come. . . .

‘Therefore the Senate need take only a very’ mild interest in this
amendment to the Constitution. It merely takes a short and a halting
step towards bringing the constitutional theory of our Parliament
into line with what is the constitutional practice in practically all
modem Parliaments. Ultra-democrats need have no fear as to the
i Dail Debates, xxviii, 1302, 1303.

272 PARTY POLITICS AND THE SENATE

result, because the protectionist policy of the D&il will ensure that
members of this House are not likely to be unduly troubled with
offers of Ministerial portfolios.’ 1

The second Constitution (Amendment) Bill which it is proposed
to consider here is the Amendment No. 11 Bill, which altered the
method of filling casual vacancies in the Senate. The previous system
had been one of co-option by the Senate itself, and it had worked
extremely well. Vacancies were filled with promptitude, the type of
candidate elected was uniformly good, and there had been a spirit of
mutual accommodation. Thus, when a Labour Senator died or re-
signed, his place was filled by a member of the Labour Party; and
similarly as regards the Cosgrave party and the Independent Group.
The altered system emanated from the Joint Committee, in which it
had been proposed by Mr. De Valera and carried by only one vote.
In future, a casual vacancy was to be filled by the original electing
body, that is, by the combined vote of the members of both Houses,
by secret, postal ballot. This meant, of course, that the Ddil would
have a preponderant voice, that the candidate would win who was
put forward by the party whose combined strength was greatest, and
that he would be likely to be a party politician. Of the eight Senators
elected by this new method, four were former members of the Ddil;
and, of the last five Senators so elected (1932-4) before the Senate was
abolished, three had been in the other House up to within a few
months of their election.

The machinery for the new system was provided by the Seanad
Bye-Elections Bill. Under this, the conduct of the election was taken
away from the Senate and placed in the control of the Government.,
When a vacancy occurred, the Clerk of the Senate, on the direction
of the House, was to send written notice of it to the Minister for Local '
Government. As soon as conveniently might be thereafter, and in any
case not later than six months after the receipt of the notice, the
Minister was to issue a By-Election Order directing a by-election to
be held, and the election was to be conducted by a returning officer
appointed by him. Under the Cosgrave Government the seats were
filled with reasonable expedition, but this was veiy far from being'
the case under its successor. The first vacancy was left unfilled
for almost three months ; the second and third for the full period of
six months, and the fourth for more than seven months. This last was
in breach of the statute, but the Senate had no remedy. On the date
of the abolition of the House there were two vacancies, one of which
1 Senate Debates, xii, 44, 45.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDA 273

had existed for almost the full statutory period and the other for
more than three months.

In the same year as these Bills were before Parliament (1929) there
was enacted the Constitution (Amendment No. 16) Bill, which has
been referred to in a previous chapter. Though it did not affect the
Senate directly, it had more far-reaching consequences than any of
the other Bills, and was ultimately used by Mr. De Valera to abolish
the House itself and to take the King out of the Constitution. This
Bill amended Article 50 of the Constitution by extending from eight
to sixteen years the period within which amendments might be made
to the Constitution by means of ordinary legislation, without the
necessity of a referendum. The period dated from the coming into
operation of the Constitution (6th December 1922) ; and. as the right
to demand a referendum for ordinary legislation had been abolished
in 1928, the result of the Bill was that constitutional changes could be
made up to the 5th December 193S by ordinary law without even the
possibility of a referendum. A Bill of such importance can seldom
have been enacted after less discussion. It was formally introduced in
the Ddil on the 21st November 1928 and received its Second Reading
on the 13th March following. Mr. Cosgrave then briefly explained its
purpose in a couple of short sentences, and Mr. Dc Valera said: ‘As
it is an extension of time, and we hope to sec it availed of to make
changes which will make this Constitution one which will be more
satisfactory to the Irish people, we will not object to it.’ Mr. T. J.
O’Connell, the leader of the Labour Party, expressed the prophetic
fear that there would not be much of the original Constitution left at
the end of the additional eight years, and there was no further discus-
sion on the Bill. 1 The remaining stages in the Dai! (21st March) and
all the stages in the Senate (10th April— 9th May) were passed with-
out debate. Thus while the Bill was passing through Parliament no
explanation was given of the reason for it. But it was almost certainly
due to the view held by members of the Government that it would be
in the interests of the country as a whole if the Constitution were not
the work solely of one administration, and that their successors in
office should have an opportunity of amending it by ordinary legisla-
tion if they thought fit.

The absence of party rigidity in the Senate was exemplified by what
look place during the passage of the Juries (Protection) Bill. 1929.
In the successive divisions on this highly contentious measure, the
combined opposition of Fianna Fail and Labour was reinforced on
1 DMt Debates, xwiii, 1315-17.

274 PARTY POLITICS AND THE SENATE

particular points from other quarters of the House; and Sir John
Griffith and the McGillycuddy of the Independent Group, Senator
O’Hanlon of the Cosgrave party and Sir John Keane and Senator
Hooper of the Independents all on different occasions voted against
the Government. In a Second Chamber this is precisely as it should
be. The Senate inserted eight amendments in the Bill, all of which
were agreed to by the D&il and of which one was specially noteworthy.
In the Bill as it stood a majority verdict of nine to three sufficed for a
conviction. The amendment in question provided that, whenever a
jury should find a person to be guilty of a crime for which the penalty
was death, the foreman of the jury should notify the judge in writing
whether the verdict was or was not unanimous, and the number of
dissentients (if any) ; and that the judge should convey this informa-
tion to the Minister for Justice. In such a case, if the verdict was not
unanimous it was extremely likely that the condemned man would be
reprieved.

When the Bill to abolish the Senate was before Parliament in 1934
much criticism was directed against the Senate, and against its Chair-
man, in connection with what occurred over the Constitution
(Amendment No. 17) Bill, introduced by the Cosgrave Government
in the autumn of 1931. This was the Bill which established the
Military Tribunal. A good deal of the criticism was ill-informed, but
some of it was undoubtedly sincere. It is accordingly desirable to re-
call the circumstances. On Wednesday, 14th October 1931, the Bill
was formally read a first time in the Dail and a guillotine motion was
passed in connection with it. On the following day (Thursday) the
Second Stage and Committee Stage were disposed of under the
guillotine, and by 1.45 p.m. on the next day (Friday) the remaining
stages were passed, also under the guillotine, and the Bill was sent to
the Senate. Only one minor amendment, which was sponsored by the
Government, was inserted in the Bill during its passage through the
Dail.

On the Wednesday (the day the Bill was introduced in the Ddil), a
notice of motion was handed in for the following Friday by Senators
Wilson and O’Rourke, acting on behalf of the Government. This was
a guillotine motion, to the effect that the Second Stage of the Bill
should be begun at 4.15 p.m. on the Friday (less than three hours after
the Bill was due to leave the Dail) and that it should be allotted two
and a half hours ; that the Committee Stage should be taken at 8 p.m.
on that day and should be concluded at 9.45 p.m.; and that the
Report and Fifth Stages should be taken on the Saturday from 1 1

MILITARY TRIBUNAL BILL 275

a.m. to 12 noon and from 12 noon to 1 p.m. respectively. This guillo-
tine motion therefore enabled this momentous Bill, if the Senate so
decided, to be disposed of in two days after a total debate of five and
a quarter hours, or, including the debate on the motion itself, of six
and a half hours. The Bill passed the Dail in three days after a total
debate of fifteen hours. 1

Also on the Wednesday, the Vice-President (Mr. Ernest Blythe)
attended the Senate and explained to the House the Government’s
reasons for desiring it to take the Bill on the Friday. Having heard the
Vice-President, the Senate decided by a large majority to meet on the
Friday, the only opposition being from Fianna Fail and the Labour
Party. 2

The Chairman was subsequently attacked for calling a meeting of
the House for the Friday, but this was the result of a decision of the
Senate and not of the Chairman. He was also attacked for receiving
the guillotine motion on the Wednesday, with less than the five days’
notice prescribed by the Standing Orders: but he had a discretion to
receive motions on shorter notice, and he was entitled to exercise it.
What was quite unprecedented was the fact that the motion related
to a Bill not then in possession of the Senate. If the Chairman had
refused to exercise his discretion for this reason, he would have been
within his strict rights; but such a refusal would have been, in effect,
a personal decision that a Bill was not urgent which the Government
had represented to be of the greatest urgency. On the other hand, by
accepting the motion he was not imposing a guillotine on the Senate,
but merely enabling the Senate to impose a guillotine on itself if it
saw fit. That is to say. the decision on the question of urgency, instead
of being a purely personal decision of the Chairman, would be left
to the Senate as a whole ; and it should be remembered in this connec-
tion that the members of the Government party numbered about only
one-third of the House.

The action of the Chairman was justified by the event. On the two
days on which the Bill was before the Senate, there was an attendance
of fifty-seven Senators out of a possible fifty-nine, there being at that
time one unfilled casual vacancy. Neither of the two absentees (Sena-
tors Butler and MaeGuinnessj belonged to the Opposition. There
were thus fifty-six members entitled to vote in divisions, the Chair-
man being excluded. In the successive divisions on the guillotine
motion and on the Bill, the minority never exceeded fifteen, being the
combined strength of Fianna Fail and Labour, plus Senators Dow-
1 Senate Debates, xiv, IS43-5. ~ H'itl., xiv, It 9.?-f9I6.

276 PARTY POLITICS AND THE SENATE

dall and Mrs. Wyse Power, who both subsequently joined Mr.
De Valera’s party. In the final division on the Bill there was an
exhaustive poll, forty-one voting for the Bill and fifteen against
it.

The majority contained men of the most diverse views, many of
whom had frequently voted against the Government. Such of them
as spoke made it clear that they felt bound, in view of the known facts,
to accept the Government’s assurance that the Bill was immediately
necessary to deal with an armed conspiracy which otherwise would
result in a continuance of political murder and ultimately destroy the
State. The only effective opposition came from Senator Johnson, as
Mr. De Valera’s followers were but poorly equipped for a debate of
this kind. Emotional references by their leader to ‘Star Chamber
methods to bully through legislation which is going, perhaps, to sink
this country in blood’ 1 read curiously in the light of after events,
since the Government of which he was a member subsequently made
full use of the Military. Tribunal set up under this legislation for the
trial, conviction, and imprisonment of members of the Irish Republi-
can Army and others.

During this Third Triennial Period the number of non-Money Bills
received by the Senate was about 120. Approximately one-quarter of
these were amended, the number of amendments being roughly 170,
of which practically all were agreed to by the Dail. Among the prin-
cipal Bills amended were the Landlord and Tenant Bill with thirty-
six amendments, the Local Government (Dublin) Bill with thirty-
seven, and the Censorship of Publications Bill with seventeen. The
figures represent a considerable drop as compared with those of the
previous three years, and this is probably attributable to three causes.
In the first place, the number of Bills that were not susceptible of
amendment was larger than previously. Secondly, the presence of
Fianna Fdil as the official Opposition in the Dail must have ensured,
in some degree at least, a more careful scrutiny of Bills before they
left that House. Thirdly, the new Senators, with the important excep-
tions of Senators Johnson and Wilson, were hardly as competent for
the work of revision as those whom they had succeeded. In his speech
on the Bill to abolish the Senate the Chairman of the Senate made
reference to this aspect of the matter. ‘When the Fianna Fail Party
were in opposition in the Dail, numbers of amendments were moved
by Fianna Fdil Senators in this House ; but they generally consisted
of the self-same amendments that had been moved by their Party and

1 Senate Debates , xiv, 1930.

THE THIRD TRIENNIAL ELECTION 277

rejected in the D;iil. Often, indeed. I was handed tiic green sheet of
Ddif amendments, with the names of Fianna Fail Deputies struck out
and the names of Fianna Fail Senators inserted. There was little
evidence of independent thought.’ 1

Thus the serious work of revision continued to a large extent to be
discharged by the survivors of the original Senate. Apart from this
work, the reputation of the House was considerably enhanced by
debates on various aspects of external affairs, occasioned by the
motions for the approval of the Briand-Kcllogg Fact. 5 of the ad-
herence to the Optional Clause of the Versailles Treaty. 3 and of the
Report of the Imperial Conference of 1930. 4 The speeches of Senators
Johnson, Douglas, O’Farrell. and some others on these subjects had
in them a quality of statesmanship not achieved in the other House
except from the Ministerial bench.

The Triennial Election took place in November 1931. and the un-
suitability of the system was again made manifest. There were twenty-
three retiring Senators, the number being made up as follows: the
twelve survivors of the fifteen Senators elected bv the Dail for nine
years in 1922, one Senator elected for six years in 1925. four Senators
elected for three years in 1928. and six Senators elected to fill casual
vacancies during the current period. The Constitution therefore re-
quired that the election should be from a panel of forty-six names,
formed as to one-half by the Senate and as to the other half by the
Dail. Arrangements were duly made for a preliminary election in
each House, so as to reduce the number of candidates in each half of
the panel to twenty-three. In neither case was this course necessary,
however. No man of high distinction would waste his time in offering
himself as a candidate at an election of which the result was practi-
cally a foregone conclusion. As in 1928 there was a dearth of candi-
dates. The Senate nominated the twenty-three outgoing Senators as
its portion of the panel. The D:iil portion contained only sixteen
names instead of the twenty-three required by the Constitution, and
of these sixteen no less than eleven were duplicated from the Senate
portion. There were thus only twenty-eight candidates for twenty-
three scats. Apart from the outgoing Senators, there were only five
candidates: all of these were on the Dail portion of the panel; four
of them were followers of Mr. De Valera and one belonged to the
Cosgravc party; all five were destined to be successful.

The result of the election was as follows :

1 Senate Dehates, xviii. 1249.
3 Ibid.. M'ii. 1053-64.

= Ibid., m. *21 -SO.

‘ lb.;!., si;, 1599-1674,

278 PARTY POLITICS AND THE SENATE

* 1 . Laurence O’Neill

* 2. Michael Comyn, K.C.

* 3. Sedn E. MacEllin

* 4. Colonel Maurice Moore
5. Daniel H. MacParland

* 6. The McGillycuddy of the

Reeks

* 7. Arthur R. Vincent

* 8. Sir John P. Griffith

* 9. James G. Douglas
*10. Thomas Farren

11. William Quirke

*12. John J. Counihan

13. Hugh Garahan

14. Seamas Ryan
*15. John MacLoughlin
*16. Brian O’Rourke

17. David L. Robinson
*18. Michael Duffy
*19. Michael Staines
*20. James MacKean
*21. Dr. William O’Sullivan
*22. Mrs. E. Costello
*23. Miss K. A. Browne

The first twenty of these were to sit for nine years, the twenty-first
for six years, and the last two for three years.

The following five Senators lost their seats :

R. A. Butler W. J. Molloy

William Barrington Sir Walter Nugent, Bart.

George Crosbie

Sir Walter Nugent was an Independent, Mr. Barrington belonged to
the Independent Group, and the remaining three were members of
the Cosgrave Party. Of those who replaced them, all except Senator
Garahan were members of Fianna Fdil.

In terms of parties, the result was as follows : Cosgrave party, 9 ;
Fianna Fdil, 7 ; Independent Group, 4 ; Labour Party, 2 ; Indepen-
dent, 1.

In connection with the 1928 election comment was made on the
increasing number of Senators of a political type. Of those now
elected Senator Staines had been a member of the Ddil from 1918 to
1923 ; Senator O’Neill was a member of the Ddil, 1922-3, and a de-
feated candidate in September 1927 ; Senator Quirke had been an un-
successful anti-Treaty candidate at the general election of 1923 ; and
Senator Garahan had been elected as a member of the Farmers’ Party
in June 1927, but had lost his seat in the following September.

* Outgoing Senator.

PART V

THE FOURTH TRIENNIAL PERIOD
6th DECEMBER 1931 TO 5th DECEMBER 1934

‘ Ignorance — especially of politicians — must always be a vice , but un-
der no circumstances can it be such a vice as when ignorant politicians
set out to reform historic institutions, by neglecting experience and mis-
representing history .’ '

H. W. V. Temperley, Senates and Upper Chambers, p. 7.

‘ Being cross'd in conference by some Senators.'’

Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, I, ii, 187.

4 What's this but libelling against the Senate ?’

Shakespeare, Titus Andronicus, IY, iv, 17.

CHAPTER XVII

MR. DE VALERA TAKES OFFICE

Reasons for early general election — The dissolution — The election
campaign — Government unpopularity— Humour and tragedy— Result
of the general election of February 1932— Hew Chairman of the Dail—
Mr. De Valera in office — The new Administration — The hind Annui-
ties — Quarrel with the British Government — Abortive conversations in
Dublin and London — The Government defaults and the British retaliate
— Beginning of the economic war — Ho Anglo-Irish agreement a:
Ottawa — The October Conference in London — Mr. De Valera's claims
— Deadlock — Patrick Hogan's courageous speech — Insults to the
Governor-General — His dismissal — Appointment of his successor —
The internal situation — Release of the prisoners — The Military Tri-
bunal at an end— Open drilling by the Irish Republican Army— The
Wolfe Tone demonstration — Immunity of extremists — Denial of free
speech — The Army Comrades Association— Boycott of British goods—
Attitude of the Government — Formation of the National Centre Party
— Movement for fusion with Mr. Cosgravc — The surprise dissolution.

T_Jndcr an amendment of the Constitution passed in I927 1 the life
of the Dail was fixed at ‘six years or such shorter period as may he
fixed by legislation’. In the original Constitution it had been four
years. By the Electoral (Amendment) Act. 1927. the maximum dura-
tion was defined to be five years reckoned from the first meeting of
the Dail after the previous dissolution. After the dissolution of the
25th August 1927 the Dail had first met on the following 11th
October: the five years’ period would accordingly expire on the 10:ii
October 1932. There were, however, two compelling reasons why a
general election should be held months in advance of the latest per-
missible date. In the week beginning the 20:h lur.c the Eucharistic

1 Constitution (Amcntfir.cn! No. 4) Ac:. 1927.

2-Sl

282 MR. DE VALERA TAKES OFFICE

Congress was to be held in Dublin, and with this event was to be
combined the commemoration of the fifteen-hundredth anniversary
of Saint Patrick’s arrival in Ireland (a.d. 432). These events would
attract many thousands of people to Ireland from all parts of the
world, and it was desirable that the bitter storm which heralds an
Irish election should be past and not impending at the time of their
arrival. Further, the Imperial Economic Conference was due to be
held in Ottawa from the 21st July to the 20th August, and no
government could profitably attend it whose mandate might be
withdrawn by the people as soon as its delegates returned. Accor-
dingly, Parliament was dissolved by the Governor-General, on Mr.
Cosgrave’s advice, by Proclamation dated the 29th January 1932.
The general election was fixed for the 16th February, and the date
of re-assembly was the 9th March.

The Government party had little in the way of a detailed pro-
gramme. They pointed, with legitimate pride, to their record in both
the external and the internal field ; to the co-equality formally recog-
nized by the Statute of Westminster ; to their membership of the
Council of the League of Nations ; to the increase in and improve-
ment of agricultural products ; to the nascent industries established
under a scientific tariff; most important of all, to the restoration of
order. But the party manifesto 1 contained few detailed proposals for
the future and consisted mostly of warnings about the intense politi-
cal agitation and unrest which would ensue if Mr. De Valera were
returned to power and started to scrap the machinery of the State.
This largely negative attitude was a mistake, for no government can
continue successfully to rely on its past record ; democracy, like the
Athenians, likes to hear something new. Moreover, Mr. Cosgrave’s
Administration was at that time the oldest in Europe, and its ten
years of office had inevitably stirred up feelings of unpopularity and
resentment against it in numerous directions.

The Fianna Fail manifesto, 2 in contrast to that of the Govern-
ment, was an extremely attractive document. The parliamentary
Oath was not required by the Treaty, and was to be abolished. This
proposal would perhaps not excite much enthusiasm, but the same
could not be said of the other items. The Land Annuities were to be
retained in the State Treasury; the British were not entitled to them
in law, and the farmer’s title to his land would be unaffected. This
meant a ‘saving’ of three millions sterling annually. Legal opinion
was to be taken on the question of obligation to make the other
1 Irish Independent , 8 February 1932. 2 Ibid., 11 February 1932,

PARTIES AND POLICIES 283

annual payments, including the pensions of the former Royal Irish
Constabulary. These amounted to another two millions. Industries
were to be established to meet the needs of the community in manu-
factured goods. Great Britain and Ireland were each other’s best
customer, and the machinery required for the new industries could
be purchased from the British in return for a preference for Irish
agricultural products. The fears of the timid were allayed by pledges
that Fianna Fail would not, if returned to power, exceed the mandate
asked for in the field of international relations without again consult-
ing the people, and that all citizens would be treated as equal before
the law. From beginning to end, the Republic was not mentioned.

The manifesto of the Labour Party 1 was, as usual, well drafted, but
as the party nominated only thirty-one candidates it need not be con-
sidered here. It concentrated on social rather than political issues,
and was severely critical of the Cosgrave Government. It was ob-
viously the aim of the Labour Party to put Mr. De Valera in office
and to make him dependent on Labour votes.

If the Government really desired a renewal of confidence at the
polls its actions immediately before the election bordered on lunacy.
It announced its intention of effecting substantial reductions in the
salaries of National Teachers and of making married women in-
eligible as teachers. The teachers are a very numerous and influential
body, and their votes and those of their family connections were
presumably lost to the Government. It was also proposed to reduce
the pay of the Civic Guards ; these have no votes, but their fathers,
mothers, and wives were all on the register. Most foolish of all, a
prosecution for seditious libel was instituted before the Military
Tribunal against Mr. De Valera’s newspaper, the Irish Press, and its
editor Mr. Frank Gallagher, a journalist of the highest repute. The
charge arose out of the alleged ill treatment of political prisoners by
the C.I.D. section of the Civic Guards. Such a prosecution, if
launched at all, should have been brought before the ordinary courts.
The defendants pleaded justification, over fifty witnesses were ex-
amined, and for eleven days immediately prior to polling day the
newspaper reports of the evidence given for the defence provided the
finest possible propaganda for Fianna Fail. Judgement was given by
the Tribunal on the day after the election, and the two defendants
were fined £100 each. They must have thought it cheap at the price,
and in any case public opinion, irrespective of politics, was on their
side.

1 The Watchword, 6 February 1932.

284 MR. DE VALERA TAKES OFFICE

The atmosphere of the campaign was relatively peaceful, and it
was not devoid of humour. Captain Redmond, who had formerly
been such a thorn in Mr. Cosgrave’s side, joined the Government
party, which had a virtual merger with the farmers. Fianna Fail
described these moves as ‘the alliance of a dog with his fleas’. On
the other side, the Government party put out an amusing poster in
the form of a circus playbill, headed ‘Dewy’s Circus: Absolutely
the Greatest Road Show in Ireland To-Day ’, and starring the alleged
proprietor of the circus as ‘The World-famous Illusionist, Oath-
Swallower and Escapologist. See his Renowned Act Escaping from
the Strait Jacket of the Republic!’ There was also a tragedy, how-
ever. Two days before the election Mr. Patrick Reynolds, a Govern-
ment Deputy who was also a candidate, was shot dead. The act was
that of a demented man and had no political significance, but the
facts were not known till later and the tragedy increased the tension
incident to the election. The contest in the dead man’s constituency
(Leitrim-Sligo) had to be postponed for a fortnight; his widow took
his place and was returned.

Every effort was made by Fianna F&il to affix an imperialist label
on Mr. Cosgrave, and prominence was given to the fact that his party
had sought and obtained financial assistance for the campaign from the
ex-Unionists. It was also pointed out that the Government had
‘bribed’ this element of the community by offering facilities for a
War Memorial Park (which was afterwards completed under Mr.
De Valera). It is true that a fund was collected by a committee of
well-known persons, both ex-Unionists and ex-Nationalists, who had
not joined any political party since the Treaty: and that the money so
collected was used in support of candidates pledged to support the
Government in the maintenance of the Constitution; but this was
more than counterbalanced by the fact that the whole weight of ex-
treme militant Republicanism was on the side of Mr. De Valera. Very
shortly after the election Mr. Peadar O’Donnell wrote: ‘To put
Fianna F&il in was the only way to put the Cosgrave gang out.
Fianna Fdil was the flail to thrash the pious and illustrious William
and Co. So Fianna F&il goes in.’ 1

The result of the election was as follows, the party strength at the
time of the dissolution being given in brackets :

1 An Phoblacht , 12 March 1932.

RESULT OF THE GENERAL ELECTION 285

Party

Candidates

nominated

Members

elected

Fianna Fail (De Valera)

104

72(56)

Cumann na nGaedheal (Cosgrave)

101

57 (66)

Independents

11 (13)

Labour

7(10)

Farmers

4 (6)

Independent Labour

279

2 (2)

153

The country had thus declared emphatically that it desired a change
of government. On the other hand, Mr. De Valera was given only a
qualified mandate. His party numbered less than half the House, and
he would be obliged to depend on the support of Labour. Roughly,
there would be a De Valera bloc of seventy-nine and a Cosgrave bloc
of seventy-four. All the ex-Ministers were returned, but the Labour
Party suffered a blow by the defeat of its chairman, Mr. T. J.
O’Connell, a leader of moderation and ability. Under his successor,
Mr. William Norton, Labour was destined to incline more to the Left.

When the Dail reassembled on the 9th March 1932 Mr. Frank
Fahy, a member of Fianna Fail, was elected Chairman of the House
on a purely party vote, and Mr. Michael Hayes, who had filled the
office with distinction since 1922, became a private member. Mr.
Fahy proved to be a capable and impartial Chairman, but the view
was expressed that the occupancy of the Chair should not be deter-
mined by the varying changes of political fortune. Mr. De Valera
was thereupon elected President of the Executive Council by 81
votes to 68, there being no other nomination for the office. The sitting
was then suspended for a short time and, when it was resumed, the
new President announced, in Irish, that his appointment had been
approved by the Governor-General. The assent of the Dail was.
thereupon given, without discussion and without a division, to the
following members of the Executive Council :

Minister for External Affairs :
Vice-President and Minister for Local
Government and Public Health :
Minister for Lands and Fisheries :
Minister for Industry and Commerce :
Minister for Finance :

Minister for Agriculture :

fiamon De Valera.

Sean T. O’Kelly.
Patrick J. Ruttledge.
Sean F. Lemass.
Sean MacEntee.

Dr. James Ryan.

286 MR. DE VALERA TAKES OFFICE

Minister for Defence : Frank Aiken.

Minister for Education : Thomas Derrig.

Minister for Justice: James Geoghegan, K.C.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs : Senator Joseph

Connolly. 1

The appointment of Senator Connolly was a surprise, in view of the
determined opposition of Fianna F&il in 1929 to the amendment of
the Constitution pursuant to which this was made possible. But his
nomination was not due to the fact that he was a member of the
Senate.

It was only to be expected that Mr. De Valera’s pre-election declara-
tions regarding the abolition of the Oath and the retention of the
Land Annuities would sooner or later lead to difficulties with the
British Government; but his method of approach to the inevitable
controversy can hardly be characterized as other than provocative.
National dignity, as well as ordinary courtesy, would seem to have
required that he should formally communicate his intentions to the
British Government, with the reasons therefor, either by direct dis-
patch or through the medium of the High Commissioner in London.
Instead, he began by intimating his proposals to numerous Press
correspondents, Irish, British, and foreign, as well as by broadcasting
them to the United States, leaving the British to enter a demurrer if
they thought fit.

The subject of the Oath intimately concerned the Senate and is ac-
cordingly dealt with in the chapter which follows. It is no part of this
history to examine the merits of the financial dispute, but it is desir-
able to state in general terms what the issue was. The Land Annuities
are annual payments made by Irish fanners to the Irish Land Com-
mission in repayment of sums lent to them for the purchase of their
holdings under the Land Purchase Acts. So much of these Annuities
as were in respect .of land purchased under the Irish Land Acts,
1891-1909 (i.e. the pre-Treaty Acts), was paid over each half-year by
the Cosgrave Government to the British National Debt Commisr
sioncrs, to meet the service of the loans raised for that purpose. The
annual amount involved was about £3,000,000. These payments were
made pursuant to (a) the Financial Agreement dated the 12th
February 1923, signed by Mr. Cosgrave and Major John W. Hills,
the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and (b) the Ultimate Finan-
cial Settlement, dated the 19th March 1926 and signed by Mr. Ernest

1 Dail Debates, xli, 19-38.

DISPUTE WITH BRITISH GOVERNMENT 287

Blythe and Mr. Winston Churchill. The 1923 Agreement was not
published until after the dispute arose, 1 but the statutory authority
for payment is contained in section 12 of the Land Act, 1923. The
1926 Agreement was published eight months after it had been signed.
Neither was' submitted to the Irish Free State Parliament for ratifica-
tion.

Of the other payments involved, the principal were an annual sum
of £600,000 for twenty years to the Local Loans Fund and 75 per
cent of the pensions payable to former members of the Royal Irish
Constabulary under the Constabulary Acts. These other payments
were covered by the two Agreements specified, and they amounted in
the aggregate to another £2,000,000.

The subject was first broached from the British side by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Neville Chamberlain) in a speech at
Birmingham on the 18th March. He said that any suggestion that
obligations or agreements, solemnly entered into by the two countries,
could be repudiated or varied by either side as though it concerned
that side alone would cause the British Government the gravest con-
cern, and, if seriously pursued, would undoubtedly revive bitterness
and differences which it was hoped had been removed for ever. 2 Four
days later, in response to an inquiry from the Secretary of State for
Dominion Affairs (Mr. J. H. Thomas), the High Commissioner in
London (Mr. J. W. Dulanty) issued a statement of his Government’s
intentions in regard to the Oath. It was not mandatory in the Treaty,
it was a relic of medievalism, and its removal was a purely domestic
matter. Mr. Thomas replied (23rd March) that the Oath was an inte-
gral part of the Treaty, and that the Irish Free State Government was
bound by the most formal undertakings to pay the Land Annuities.
Mr. De Valera’s rejoinder (5th April) was an attack on the whole
Treaty position. The Treaty gave effect to what was the will of the
British Government. It was directly opposed to the will of the Irish
people, and was submitted to by them only under the threat of imme-
diate and terrible war. British maintenance parties were still in oc-
cupation of some of our principal ports. And much more to the same
effect. This dispatch, of course, went far beyond the issue originally
raised and made it clear that the repudiation of the whole settlement
of 1921 was involved. In his reply (9th April) Mr. Thomas pointed
this out ; and he described the origin and nature of the Land Annui-
ties, and the basis of the Irish liability to pay them. 3

1 Cmd. 4061 (1932) (vol. xiv, p. 239). 2 The Times, 19 March 1932.

2 Cmd. 4056 (1932) (vol. xiv, p. 273).

288 MR. DE VALERA TAKES OFFICE

While this unhopeful correspondence was in progress, long cable-
grams were received by Mr. De Valera in the first four days of
April from the Prime Ministers of Australia (Mr. Lyons), South
Africa (General Hertzog), and New Zealand (Mr. Forbes), expressing
their concern at the turn which events were taking and hoping for a
satisfactory solution. Mr. De Valera thanked them, but reiterated the
points made to Mr. Thomas. 1

Meantime, the Bill to abolish the Oath was going through the Ddil ;
and on the 11th May Mr. Thomas announced in the House of
Commons that, as it was a direct breach of the Treaty, the British
Government had decided that, if it became law, they could not be
expected to negotiate further agreements in regard to tariffs with a
government which repudiated existing agreements. 2 This meant no
agreements at Ottawa, and such an alarming possibility seems to
have decided Mr. De Valera to negotiate. At all events, Mr. Thomas
told the House of Commons on the 6th June that he and the Secretary
of State for War (Lord Hailsham) were crossing over to Dublin that
night, in response to an invitation from Mr. De Valera, to discuss
difficulties in regard to the Ottawa Conference : the conversations to
be resumed in London on the 10th June. 3

It was obvious that the British were prepared to negotiate a com-
promise, and hopes ran high in Ireland. They were doomed, however,
to disappointment. At the Dublin meeting, according to Mr. Thomas,
Mr. De Valera pointed out that his ultimate aim was the union of the
Irish Free State and Northern Ireland, and after that the recognition
of a united Ireland as a republic, with some form of association with
the British Commonwealth. At the moment, his Government had no
mandate for this course, but it intended to abolish the Oath and re-
tain the Land Annuities. On the resumption of the conversations in
London, Mr. De Valera argued that the Oath was forced upon the
Irish people under duress, whereupon Mr. Thomas quoted statements
of Kevin O’Higgins and referred to the fact that the Oath and the
Treaty had been conclusively accepted by the people at four general
elections between 1922 and September 1927. As to the Land Annui-
ties, Mr. De Valera asserted that they had been paid behind the backs
of the people, and Mr. Thomas pointed out that the Ultimate Finan-
cial Settlement had been discussed by the Ddil and that the govern-
ment which concluded it had been returned at the succeeding general
election. Mr. De Valera was asked to agree to submit the question

1 Irish Times, 9 April 1932.

2 House of Commons Debates, cclxv, 1914. 3 Ibid., cclxvi, 1588-90,

BEGINNING OF ECONOMIC WAR 289

of the Annuities to a Commonwealth Tribunal on the lines suggested
in the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1930 (which had been
approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas) ; but he refused, on the
ground that such a Tribunal would have a natural bias against
Ireland. 1 Mr. De Valera’s account does not contradict that of Mr.
Thomas on essential points. 2

There followed an inconclusive correspondence (16th-22nd June),
Mr. De Valera offering to agree to arbitration if the Tribunal were
not restricted solely to citizens of States of the Commonwealth, and
the British Government declining to accept this proposal. 3

On the 1st July the Irish Free State defaulted over the half-yearly
payment of £1,500,000 due in respect of the Land Annuities. Three
days later, a Financial Resolution was passed by the House of
Commons by a large majority, to enable the British Government to
collect the sums in default by means of Customs duties levied on
imports from the Irish Free State. This was followed up by the Irjsh
Free State (Special Duties) Bill, which became law on the 11th July.
The Irish Free State retaliated with the Emergency Imposition of
Duties Bill, which was introduced in the Ddil on the 14th July and
passed into law nine days later. Thus began the so-called economic
war, which lasted for nearly six years, until it was ended by the Anglo-
Irish Agreements signed in London on the 25th April 1938.

The Government sent a delegation to Ottawa, headed by the Vice-
President of the Executive Council (Mr. Se&n T. O’Kelly), and
minor agreements were entered into with Canada and South Africa.
No agreement was concluded with Great Britain.

By mutual arrangement, Mr. De Valera met Mr. Thomas in Lon-
don on the 5th October, on his way home from Geneva, and it was
agreed that the disputed payments should be made the subject of ne-
gotiation between the two countries, without prejudice to the status
quo as regards either the withholding of the Land Annuities or the im-
position of the duties on each side. The conference met in London on
the 14th and 15th October. Mr. De Valera was accompanied by the
Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee), the Minister for Justice (Mr.
Geoghegan, K.C.), and the Attorney-General (Mr. Maguire, K.C.).
The British delegation consisted of Mr. J. H. Thomas, Mr. Neville
Chamberlain, Lord Hailsham, Sir John Simon, and Sir Thomas
Inskip. On the 18th October Mr. Thomas gave an account to the
House of Commons of what took place. Mr. De Valera denied that

1 House of Commons Debates, cclxvii, 675-89. , .

a DAil Debates, xlii, 1688-1700. 3 Cd. 4116 (1932) (vol. xiv, p. 281).

290 MR. DE VALERA TAKES OFFICE

any ultimate financial settlement had ever been made between the
two countries, and claimed that a new settlement should be con-
cluded, covering all financial issues. In this connection claims were
put forward (a) for a sum of three hundred or four hundred million
pounds for over-taxation since the Union of 1801, and (b) for an un-
specified amount in respect of damage caused by Great Britain’s
abandonment of the Gold Standard. 1 When questioned by Mr.
McGilligan in the Dail on the following day, Mr. De Valera ad-
mitted that these claims had been made. 2 In the circumstances, it is
perhaps not surprising that the negotiations broke down on the after-
noon of the second day. The memoranda of the conference were
afterwards published. 3 Mr. De Valera’s general attitude is indicated
by the following quotation : ‘It is possible that if we were prepared,
as they seemed to wish, to go in the role of beggars, hat in hand,
asking for consideration and charity, there might be a disposition to
make minor modifications and some mitigation of their claim, but
simple justice they were not prepared to concede. They took their
stand on the supposed inviolability of the secret documents of 1923
and 1926, and they refused to budge from that position.’ 4 On the
8th November, at the annual convention of his party in Dublin, Mr.
De Valera declared that, so far as his Government was concerned,
the Land Annuities would never be paid; 6 and there the matter
rested until the settlement of the 25th April 1938. Trade agreements
of a minor character were subsequently concluded with the British
Government, and the hardships inflicted upon Irish farmers were to
some extent alleviated by bounties and other financial devices ; but,
while the economic war continued, the annual sums guaranteed to
be paid by the Ultimate Financial Settlement signed by the Minister
for Finance in 1926 were collected in full, and by the method most
calculated to intensify ill-feeling between the two countries', namely,
by means of customs duties levied at the ports.

The dispute was rendered less easy of settlement because the
economic issue seemed at the time to be inextricably intertwined with
the political issue. During the June negotiations it is possible that the
British would not have continued to insist on an exclusively Common-
wealth personnel for the proposed Arbitration Tribunal but for Mr.
De Valera’s proposal to abolish the Oath and his forthright intima-
tion that his ultimate aim was the establishment of a republic. The

i House of Commons Debates, cclxix, 15-20. - Dail Debates, xliv, 138-50.

n Cd. 4184 (1932) (vol. xiv, p. 285). 4 Dail Debates, xliv, 141.

1 Irish Press, 9 November 1932.

MR. HOGAN’S COURAGEOUS SPEECH 2?1
truth seems to be that his mind was back in 1921, and that, so far
as he was concerned, the Cosgrave Government might just as well
have never existed. The best comment on this unhappy position was
made by the late Patrick Hogan (the former Minister for Agriculture)
when speaking on the Oath Bill. The passage is from what was pro-
bably the most courageous and most statesmanlike speech ever
delivered in the Dail. 1

‘War is not the greatest of evils, but it is a terrible one. Persistent
poverty, persistent unsettlement, persistent politics, persistent con-
fusion and chaos, are worse than a decent war, far worse; worse for
the man and the woman who are poor, worse for the unemployed,
worse for the under-dog, worse for everybody. A war is over between
two civilized countries and something is settled. What is happening
here? Nothing ever begins ; nothing ever ends ; we are always going
round in a circle, and this Bill will keep us in that position. If you
ask me, there are a great number of people who call themselves
patriots who want to see this country kept in this position, because
they know perfectly well that politics and the Republic and all the
rest of them are merely a way of avoiding work, and they know that
their living, their raison d'etre , will be gone if once you have settled
conditions here. What made France and England great countries,
because they are, materially, spiritually, in literature, art, and every-
thing else? That they happened to get a fixed Constitution hundreds
of years ago, due to the fact that they had great leaders, and that the
citizens of these countries could forget politics, except periodically,
and settle down to the really important matters, the business of life.
We never could do it. It was not our fault up to 1922. We got a chance
in 1922 and the President stepped in between the country and the
chance that this country has been looking for for centuries. I say
that the issue to-day is not whether the Treaty is good enough for us,
but whether we are good enough for the Treaty. That is the real
issue.’

During the months in which the Anglo-Irish discussions were in
progress a series of calculated petty insults was being offered by
members of the Government to His Majesty the King in the person
of his Representative in the Irish Free State. The Governor-General,
the late Mr. James McNeill, was a cultured Irish gentleman who had
had a distinguished career in the Indian Civil Service. He had been
his country’s first High Commissioner in London, and since his
appointment to the Governor-Generalship, in succession to Mr.

1 Dail Debates, xli, 1020-34.

292 MR. DE .VALERA TAKES OFFICE

T. M. Healy at the beginning of 1928, he had discharged the duties
of his office with quiet courtesy and tact. On the night of Saturday,
the 23rd April, a reception and dance were given at the French Lega-
tion by M. Alphand, Minister of France, who was afterwards the
French Ambassador in Moscow. Among the guests were the Vice-
President of the Executive Council (Mr. O’Kelly) and the Minister
for Defence (Mr. Aiken). The Governor-General was also invited,
and when he arrived they departed. The incident was reported in the
newspapers on the following Monday, and the account in the Irish
Press, which is the organ of the Government party, stated : ‘Later the
Governor-General arrived ; this was a surprise, and Mr. O’Kelly and
Mr. Aiken then left.’ Taken in conjunction with this statement, the
action of the Ministers seemed to imply that His Majesty’s Ministers
(for that is, of course, what they were) ought not to have been in-
vited to a social function at which His Majesty’s Representative was
also a guest. For this piece of gaucherie the Government is said to
have had to apologize to the French Minister. 1

On the following day (26th April), the Governor-General wrote to
the President of the Executive Council to protest against what was
‘part of a considered policy that the Governor-General should be
treated with deliberate discourtesy by members of your Council and
by the newspaper which you control’. Mr. De Valera replied on the
30th April : * . . . As regards the Ministers : the incident was no less
embarrassing for them than for the Governor-General, and the publi-
city which ensued might have seriously affected the public interest.
... If the Governor-General’s public social engagements are com-
municated to me in advance, such an incident will certainly not occur
in the future.’ In view of this unsatisfactory reply, the Governor-
General addressed a further letter to Mr. De Valera, on the 2nd May,
in which he said that ‘an apology from you and the two Ministers
concerned is due, not merely on my personal or official account, but
with regard to the honour and self-respect of Irish public life’. Mr.
De Valera refused to apologize, however. In his reply of the 7th May
he stated that he ‘regarded the whole affair as unfortunate and re-
grettable, and one that should not have been permitted to occur.
Further than this I am unable to go.’

Before the change of government, the Governor-General, who was
a Catholic, had made tentative arrangements to invite distinguished
Catholics to stay with him at the Viceregal Lodge for the period of
the Eucharistic Congress in June. After much delay, a verbal message
1 The Round Table, September 1932, p. 768.

INSULTS TO THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL 293

was conveyed to him by the Secretary of the Department of External
•Affairs to the effect that the issue by him of such invitations would
cause embarrassment to the Government. In a letter addressed to
Mr. De Valera on the 24th May, Mr. McNeill protested, and pointed
out that it was then too late for him to alter his plans.

One of the features of the Eucharistic Congress was a civic recep-
tion given in the Mansion House by the Lord Mayor of Dublin, at
which the Papal Legate and all the high dignitaries attending the
Congress were present. For this reception the Lord Mayor requested
the loan of the Army Band. The Minister for Defence had an inter-
view with the Lord Mayor, at which he inquired whether the
Governor-General would be invited. On being informed that this
was so, he refused the services of the Army Band.

Another feature of the Congress was a state reception given in the
historic Saint Patrick’s Hall of Dublin Castle by Mr. De Valera as
President of the Executive Council. The Governor-General was not
invited to this function, nor did any of his guests attend it.

These incidents were detailed in a letter sent by Mr. McNeill to
Mr. De Valera on the 7th July, after the Congress had ended. The
letter continued:

‘I never sought any public office. I am willing to return to private
life when my acceptance of public duty is displeasing to a majority
either of the Dail or of the people. But I do not think I should resign
any office because other office holders think I am a suitable target
for ill-conditioned bad manners. I know that you have a majority in
the DSil. I know that you can have me removed.

‘I have arranged that this letter and all the correspondence except
your letter marked “Personal” shall be published within three days
unless I receive apologies here from you and the other Ministers,
who have sometimes openly and sometimes otherwise sought to be-
have with calculated discourtesy to the Governor-Gefieral from
whom you accepted confirmation of your appointments.’

Mr. De Valera replied by return, tendering the formal advice of
the Executive Council that the correspondence was not to be pub-
lished. The next day (9th July) Mr. McNeill answered: ‘. . . In the
case of affronts, however outrageous, by the President and some
members of the Executive Council to the Governor-General, there
is in your Council’s opinion no course open to me but silent accep-
tance. . . . The correspondence other than your letter marked
“Personal ” will be published.’ From that point events moved rapidly.
On the afternoon of Sunday, 10th July, the correspondence was

294 MR. DE VALERA TAKES OFFICE

handed to the Press by the Governor-General’s A.D.C. The same
night high police officials visited the offices of the Dublin newspapers
and warned them not to publish it. On the Monday morning the
principal English newspapers printed the correspondence, and fruit-
less attempts were made to prevent the circulation of copies of these
papers which had arrived at the ports and along the Northern Ireland
border. The same afternoon the Government capitulated to the in-
evitable, and issued a statement that, as the correspondence had ap-
peared in ‘foreign’ newspapers, publication in the Irish newspapers
was authorized; and the full correspondence was printed in the
Dublin press of the 12th July.

Mr. McNeill’s normal term of five years would have expired in
February 1933, but on the 3rd October the following announcement
was issued from the Department of External Affairs : ‘In accordance
with the advice tendered to His Majesty by the President of the
Executive Council, the King has approved of Mr. James McNeill
relinquishing the office of Governor-General of the Irish Free State.’
In plain language, he had been dismissed. This was followed by a
further announcement from the High Commissioner’s Office in
London on the 26th November : ‘ His Majesty the King, on the advice
of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State, has appointed
Domhnall Ua Buachalla, Esq., to the office of Governor-General of
the Irish Free State.’ Domhnall Ua Buachalla, in English Daniel
Buckley, was a retired country shop-keeper who had had a general
store in his native town of Maynooth, less than twenty miles from
Dublin. He had taken part in the Rising of 1916 and was an Irish
language enthusiast. His career in politics had been chequered. He
was a Sinn Fein member of the Dail from 1918 to 1922, and a de-
feated anti-Treaty candidate at the general elections of 1 922 and 1 923.
He was elected in June 1927 and defeated again in September 1927
and in 1932. He was now installed in a house taken for him in a Dub-
lin suburb, the Viceregal Lodge being left vacant; and almost his sole
duty was to affix his signature to Acts of Parliament.

The internal situation during this period must now be considered.
It was the avowed intention of the new Administration to govern
without coercion and they proposed to remove the Oath because, in
their opinion, it involved government by coercion. The only people
affected were the Republicans, and the fatal fallacy in this argument
lay in the fact that the Republicans had made it clear ad nauseam
that they had no intention of recognizing the Irish Free State even if
the Oath were removed.

TOLERATION OF EXTREMISM 295

The Dail met on the 9th March, the composition of the Executive
Council was approved, and the Ministers received their appoint-
ments from the Governor-General. Immediately these formalities
had been concluded, the Minister for Justice and the Minister for
Defence proceeded straight to Arbour Hill Barracks, where the Re-
publicans who had been sentenced by the Military Tribunal were
imprisoned. The Minister for Defence spent some time in the cell of
Mr. George Gilmore, who was serving a sentence of five years’ penal
servitude. The two men saluted each other warmly on parting, and
Mr. Gilmore, who called the Minister by his Christian name, said he
need not tell him that he had been glad to see him. 1 All these priso-
ners were released on the following day.

On the 12th March An Phoblacht, the weekly organ of the extre-
mists, reappeared after having been suppressed for three months. It
contained an article by Mr. Maurice Twomey, the Chief of Staff of
the Irish Republican Army, in the course of which he said :

‘Fianna Fail declares its intention to chop off some of the Imperial
tentacles ; every such achievement is of value and will be welcomed.
Notwithstanding such concessions, the Irish Republican Army must
continue its work, and cannot escape its role as the vanguard of the
Freedom Movement.’

On the 18th March the Government issued an Order suspending
the operation of Article 2a of the Constitution. The effect of this was
that the Military Tribunal came to an end, and the Order lapsed
which had declared the Irish Republican Army to be an unlawful
association. It was still, of course, condemned by the Church, but
this fact seems to have made little difference. Drilling, and marching
in military formation with military words of command, began to take
place. Though the facts about this matter are not known, it seems not
unlikely that the Irish Republican Army had an understanding with
the Government that they would not be interfered with if they did
not openly carry arms. During a debate in the Ddil on the 20th April,
the Minister for Justice said : ‘Military words of command necessary
to prevent one of these, to my mind, wholly unnecessary processions
degenerating into a mob are probably, from a practical point of view,
desirable.’ 2 On the same occasion, the Minister for Industry and
Commerce stated that ‘the title of this D&il to legislate for this
country is faulty’. 3 Mr. De Valera and his colleagues were indulging
in the extremely dangerous game of playing with fire.

On the 19th June fifteen thousand men paraded in military forma-

i Irish Press, 10 March 1932. 2 Dail Debates, xli, 236. 3 Ibid.,xli, 217.

296 MR. DE VALERA TAKES OFFICE

tion at Wolfe Tone’s grave, where they were inspected by Mr.
Twomey as Chief of Staff. The oration was delivered by Mr. Sean
Russell, who quoted words alleged to have been used by Tone of
Grattan’s Parliament, ‘Of all parliaments beyond all comparison the
most shameful and abandoned of all sense of virtue, principle or even
common decency,’ and applied them to the Irish Free State Parlia-
ment. Thereupon Senator Mrs. Clarke, a member of that Parliament,
in company with two others, laid a wreath on Tone’s grave on behalf
of the National Executive of Fianna Fail. This last item was con-
sidered to be so important by the Government newspaper that it
printed it in heavy type in its account published on the following day.
The customary official parade at Tone’s grave was held on the 28th
June, when the Army was addressed by the Minister for Defence. In
its issue of the 2nd July An Phoblacht denounced this parade as
‘ camouflage, hypocrisy and mockery ’.

On the 14th July Mr. Gerald Dempsey, described by An Phoblacht
as a captain in the Irish Republican Army, was charged at the Dub-
lin Circuit Criminal Court with the illegal possession of a Colt revol-
ver, an automatic pistol and ammunition. The accused refused to re-
cognize the court and stated that the articles in question had been
stolen from him. The jury returned a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’. The
judge, addressing the prisoner, said: ‘You have heard the verdict. •
How you regard that verdict I don’t know. Possibly you have the
same contempt for it as I have.’ He thereupon sentenced him to three
months’ imprisonment for the offence of refusing to recognize the
court. 1 In its issue of the 23rd July An Phoblacht demanded Dempsey’s
release. Three days later he was unconditionally released by order of
the Minister for Justice. 2

On the 20th August the Irish Republican Army occupied Donamon
Castle, County Roscommon, as a training camp for the week-end.
By this time they had become so powerful that they were a serious
menace to public order. Their efforts were chiefly directed to the
breaking up of public meetings and the suppression of freedom of
speech. As early as the month of May Mr. Cosgrave had been denied
a hearing in Cork, where he had headed the poll at the general elec-
tion, and the meeting ended in pandemonium. 3 This kind of activity
continued throughout the summer, and as time went on the Republi-
cans grew bolder from immunity. In successive issues of the 15th and
22nd October, An Phoblacht announced that ‘free speech and the

1 Irish Press, 15 July 1932.

3 Irish Independent, 2 May 1932.

= Ibid., 27 July 1932.

THE ARMY COMRADES ASSOCIATION 297

freedom of the press must be denied to traitors and treason-mongers ’ ;
and on the 3rd November the Government organ, the Irish Press,
reported a speech made by one of the Government members of the
Ddil, in which he said: ‘Free speech was governed by certain condi-
tions, one of which was that no Party advocating foreign domination
was entitled in any country to misguide the people.’ Possibly en-
couraged by this support, Mr. Frank Ryan proclaimed at a public
meeting in Dublin on the 10th November : ‘ No matter what anyone
says to the contrary, while we have fists, hands and boots to use, and
guns if necessary, we will not allow free speech to traitors.’ 1 And
Mr. Peadar O’Donnell said at the same meeting : ‘The policeman who
put his head between Mr. Cosgrave’s head and the hands of angry
Irishmen might as well keep his head at home.’ 2

The object of this intimidation, and of the suppression of free
expression of opinion (guaranteed by Article 9 of the Constitution),
was to render a free general election impossible. In the month of
August the creeping paralysis of the body politic was arrested by the
action of the Army Comrades Association, under the leadership of
Dr. T. F. O’Higgins, who possessed the courage and much of the
ability of his dead brother, Kevin O’Higgins. Originally a friendly
association of ex-officers and men of the Irish Free State Army, it
now extended its membership to all who upheld the principles of free
speech, a free Press, and a free franchise. It quickly attained a mem-
bership of some thirty thousand and it intervened effectively to pre-
vent the breaking up of meetings. The association was not a political
body, but in the circumstances the only party which had need of its
services was the Cosgrave party. Naturally, abuse was showered upon
it by the Republicans, and the Government were seriously annoyed
by the new development, Mr. De Valera holding that the powers of
the State were adequate and were being used. Mr. E. J. Duggan, a
signatory of the Treaty, speaking of a meeting held in his own con-
stituency, said : ‘I do not admit it for one. At a meeting I was at in
Trim there were only about six Civic Guards, and were it not for the
presence of the A.C.A. we would have been run out of the town.’ Mr.
Anthony (Independent Labour) added, ‘A Civic Guard would be
murdered if he went to interfere.’ 3

Another activity of the Republicans was the prosecution of the
economic war on their own account, their opinion being apparently
that the Government lacked the courage to carry the fight to its logi-

1 Irish Press, 1 1 November 1932. 2 Irish Independent, 1 1 November 1932.

3 Dail Debates, xliv, 1573.

298 MR. DE VALERA TAKES OFFICE

cal conclusion. A British Boycott Committee was formed, and the
slogan ‘Boycott British Goods’ was taken up by An Phoblacht, as
well as painted on dead walls throughout the country. The products
of Messrs. Fry and Messrs. Cadbury were mentioned, but the prin-
cipal target was Bass’s ale. The committee wrote to members of the
licensed trade asking them not to sell this commodity; and individual
publicans were visited by young men, who requested them to dispose
of their existing stocks and not to get in any more. 1 The threat as to
what would happen in case of a refusal was contained in the issue
of An Phoblacht of the 29th October. ‘There was such an event as
the Boston Tea Party : there might even be a Dublin Ale Party.’ In a
speech in the Ddil on the 7th December, Mr. Blythe said he under-
stood that the Minister for Justice had refused to receive a deputation
from the traders on the subject; 2 and it was publicly stated later that
the Minister had intimated that ‘there was nothing in the law to pre-
vent people requesting them to stop selling anything, provided that
intimidation was not used’. But he promised protection from ‘un-
warrantable interference’. 3 The Minister for Finance mentioned this
promise in the Ddil, but when asked what would become of the
publicans’ trade he replied : * All traders must bear in mind the conse-
quences of flouting public opinion.’ 4 On the 14th December, a Dublin
Ale Party took place. A lorry containing supplies of Bass was held
up on its way from the port to the stores, the ale was emptied into the
roadway, and the barrels were set on fire. 5 Subsequent lorries were
escorted through the streets of Dublin by members of the Army
Comrades Association, at the request of the licensed trade, and there
were no more ale parties.

The discontent of the Irish farmers at the dire results to them of the
economic war, as well as the disgust of independently minded men at
the ceaseless, barren strife over the Treaty split and the Civil War,
gave rise to the formation of a new political party in the autumn of
this year. Prominent in this movement were two men who had first
entered the Ddil at the previous general election, Mr. Frank Mac-
Dermot, who had been returned as an Independent for Roscommon,
and Mr. James M. Dillon, who had been returned for Donegal, like-
wise as an Independent. Mr. MacDermot, who was in his middle
forties, was a younger son of a very old Irish family. He had been
educated in England, and had served in the British Army throughout

1 Irish Times , 5 December 1932, and Ddil Debates , xlv, 998-9.

- Dail Debates, xlv, 999. 3 Irish Times, 15 December 1932.

4 Ddil Debates , xlv, 1016. 6 Irish Times, 15 December 1932.

THE NATIONAL CENTRE PARTY 299
the Great War, after which he had joined a firm of New York bankers.
Returning home, he had contested West Belfast as a Nationalist in
1929 and had been defeated. Mr. Dillon, who was barely thirty years
of age, was one of the sons of Mr. John Dillon, the Irish patriot,
who had succeeded Mr. John Redmond in the leadership of the Irish
Parliamentary Party on the death of the latter. A highly educated
man, Mr. Dillon had been called to the Irish Bar and had extensive
business interests.

On the 15th September a farmers’ organization was formed at a
representative meeting in Dublin, in the convening of which Mr.
Patrick Belton had taken a leading part. Mr. MacDermot was
unanimously elected president. He said, very sensibly, that the parti-
tion of the country could never be ended until quarrelling with
England had definitely and finally stopped. He warned his audience
against the current cant about the duty of good Irishmen to stand
firmly behind their Government in its conflict with a ‘foreign’ nation,
and pointed out that, whatever was to be said in favour of leaving the
British Commonwealth, there was nothing to be said in favour of
staying in it while suffering the disadvantages of being outside. 1

This meeting was followed by a convention held on the 6th
October, at which the political party was founded under the name
of the National Farmers’ and Ratepayers’ League. It included among
its objects the promotion of the interests of agriculture and the
giving to farmers of power to mould Government policy ; the restora-
tion of markets ; the obliteration of the bitterness of the Civil War ; an
honourable settlement of the Anglo-Irish dispute ; and the removal of
partition by a policy of friendliness to Northern Ireland. 8 Shortly
afterwards, Mr. MacDermot secured the adherence of Mr. Dillon
and the name was changed to the National Centre Party.

The new party made rapid headway, but many well-meaning people
felt that the interests of the country would be better served by the
dissolution of the existing opposition parties and the formation of a
new, united constitutional party, having for its immediate object the
re-establishment of neighbourly relations with Great Britain on an
equitable basis, consonant with the national dignity of the country
and its position of co-equality within the Commonwealth. This feel-
ing received its first public expression in a letter from Senator Vincent,
a member of the Independent Group in the Senate, which appeared
in the Dublin newspapers on the 28th December. 3 On the following

1 Irish Times, 16 September 1932. 2 Ibid., 7 October 1932.

3 Ibid., 28 December 1932.

300 MR. DE VALERA TAKES OFFICE

day, at a representative meeting of professional men summoned by
the Lord Mayor of Dublin, a resolution was passed to similar effect. 1
These were developments which Mr. De Valera could not afford to
ignore. Four days later (2nd January 1933) the Dail was dissolved,
after a short life of less than ten months ; and a fresh general election
was ordered for the 24th January.

1 Irish Times, 30 December 1932.

thE SB*®

chutes- xviu

^ - — " ” _ j {^-election

_ " - .olidor! "f^^lero aM**

of P«‘^%J»i' ma r MaiMp wi,h ZC

Strength °J P gI( , ctio n of Vice ^ j or f rie \ J s h the Oath

r Chair man and and 1 man date toabi constitut iond

ug Senate—^ 0 fhis clairn L *$ [—The H a \ a ob j e cts of the-

rS^SS , §ra

s^ss^iSSsiS* 4

302 SENATE AND THE PARLIAMENTARY OATH

pendent, had canvassed somewhat too zealously for Mr, Laurence
O’Neill, also an Independent, with the result that Mr. O’Neill was
returned at the head of the poll and Mr. George Crosbie, the pro-
prietor of the Cork Examiner , who was a candidate of the Cosgrave
party, was defeated. The Lord Mayor very honourably resigned his
seat immediately, and at the resultant by-election Mr. Crosbie was
returned.

Cosgrave party

1928

1931

Fianna Fdil

Independent Group

Independents

Labour Party

Chairman

In view of the impending advent of Fianna Fail to office, the align-
ment of parties was of more importance than previously. It will be
seen that the combined strength of Fianna Fail and the Labour Party
(which was its ally in the D&il) almost equalled that of the Cosgrave
party. If a strict party system had been in force, the balance of power
would have lain with the Independents and the Independent Group.
Such a situation, however, seldom or never arose in practice. For
one thing, the tradition of fair play and non-rigidity established
between 1922 and 1928 was still very strong. For another, the Cos-
grave party in the Senate, in contrast to the same party in the Dail,
contained only two men who were in active politics prior to the
Treaty. The recriminations and the party spirit which so often mani-
fested themselves in the other House were therefore totally absent
from the Second Chamber. As for the members of the Independent
Group, they had no alliance with the Cosgrave party, and their whole
political outlook tended towards support of the duly constituted
government. With regard to ordinary proposals for legislation, the
Senate as a whole would discharge its function of revision with the
same assiduity as before, even if the members had no great liking for
the Bills concerned. On fundamental issues Mr. De Valera’s Adminis-
tration could hardly expect complaisance from the Upper House; but
the opposition offered would be a reasoned and not a factious opposi-
tion.

At the first meeting of the Senate after the commencement of the

MR. DE VALERA’S MANDATE EXAMINED 303
Triennial Period (9th December 1931) Senator Westropp Bennett
was unanimously re-elected Chairman, and on the following 20th
January Senator M. F. O’Hanlon was elected Vice-Chairman, also
without opposition. During the first few months of the period the
Senate was fully occupied with the consideration of Bills which the
Cosgrave Administration wished to be enacted before the dissolution.
On the 22nd March 1932, which was the first sitting day after the
formation of the new Government, Mr. De Valera came to the Senate
and addressed the House as President of the Executive Council. It
was a courteous action on his part, as there was no business on the
Order Paper which called for his attendance. He was studiously
moderate in tone, and gave a general outline of his proposals. With
regard to the people of Great Britain, he wanted to live on the friend-
liest terms with them ; but he had said this so often before that one felt
that, like the Queen in Hamlet, he was protesting too much. The
main item in his legislative programme was, of course, the abolition
of the Oath, for which he claimed a mandate from ‘an overwhelming'
majority of the people’. 1 Even on the impossible assumption that
everyone who voted for his party did so on this ground, the claim is
not substantiated by the facts. The total number of first preferences
cast for Fianna Fdil was 566,469, whereas the number cast for all
other parties combined was 707,687 — a balance of 141,218 against
Fianna Fail. 2 The truth is that even Mr. De Valera’s remarkable
powers of popular appeal had not succeeded in galvanizing the
country into any enthusiasm for this particular agitation. The reason
is obvious. The Oath had proved no barrier to Fianna Fail, and as for
Sinn Fein, the Irish Republican Army, and the rest of the irrecon-
cilables, they had made it abundantly clear that the abolition of the
Oath would make no difference to their view that the Dail was an illegal
body and that the Government was an imperialist, usurping junta.

In the course of his speech in the Senate Mr. De Valera answered
the question why, in view of his professed friendliness to Great
Britain, he was unwilling to negotiate on the question. He said : ‘If
representations are made to us, we are prepared to meet these repre-
sentations. We feel, however, that it would be quite absurd for us,
seeing that we are determined, no matter what happens, to carry out
our mandate, to make representations such as have been suggested.
Nothing could come of these representations.’ 3 Comment on the atti-
tude of mind revealed by this statement is needless.

1 Senate Debates, xv, 609. 2 Irish Independent, 5 March 1932.

3 Senate Debates, xv, 611.

304 SENATE AND THE PARLIAMENTARY OATH

The Bill to abolish the Oath was introduced in the Dail on the
20th April 1932 and was finally passed by that House, unamended,
on the following 19th May, by the joint vote of Fianna Fail and the
Labour Party over all other parties combined. It then came before
the Senate. All the previous Bills amending the Constitution had
been given a serial number, but this Bill, presumably to mark its im-
portance, was given a title indicative of its purpose, namely, the
Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill. It was, in fact, the eighteenth
amendment. The action of the Senate in regard to it will presently
be considered ; but in view of the momentous consequences of the
Bill, and of the part which the Senate’s action played in leading to its
own abolition, it is essential first to review the whole subject of the
Oath from the legal and constitutional point of view.

The Constitution was enacted by Dail Eireann, sitting as a con-
stituent assembly, and by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. As
passed by the Ddil, it consists of three parts, namely:

1. The Constitution Act proper, which contains the long title, a
preamble, and three sections.

2. The First Schedule, which is the Constitution itself, consisting of
eighty-three articles and forming the fundamental law of the Irish
Free State.

3. The Second Schedule, which is the Treaty of 1921, consisting of
eighteen articles and an annex.

The long title of the Constitution Act proper is : ‘ An Act to enact
a Constitution for the Irish Free State (Saorstdt Eireann) and for im-
plementing the Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland signed at
London on the 6th day of December, 1921.’

The first section of the Act states that the Constitution set forth in
the First Schedule shall be the Constitution of the Irish Free State,
and the third section merely gives the short title. It is the second
section that is of importance from our point of view. It reads: ‘The
said Constitution shall be construed with reference to the Articles of
Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland set forth
in the Second Schedule hereto annexed (hereinafter referred to as “the
Scheduled Treaty”) which are hereby given the force of law, and if
any provision of the said Constitution or of any amendment thereof
or of any law made thereunder is in any respect repugnant to any of
the provisions of the Scheduled Treaty, it shall, to the extent only of
such repugnancy, be absolutely void and inoperative and the Parlia-
ment and the Executive Council of the Irish Free State (Saorstdt
Eircann) shall respectively pass such further legislation and do all

CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION OF OATH 305

such other things as may be necessary to implement the Scheduled
Treaty.’

The Oath is contained in Article 4 of the Treaty, which reads as
follows : ‘The oath to be taken by Members of the Parliament of the
Irish Free State shall be in the following form :

‘I, , do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the

Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established and that I
will be faithful to H.M. King George V, his heirs and successors by
law, in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great
Britain and her adherence to and membership of the group of
nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations.’

We now turn to the Constitution itself. The relevant articles are :

1. Article 17, which gives the terms of the Oath and implements
Article 4 of the Treaty by providing the machinery. The article begins
thus : ‘The oath to be taken by members of the Oireachtas shall be in
the following form.’ The terms of the Oath are then repeated verbatim
from Article 4 of the Treaty, and the article concludes: ‘Such oath
shall be taken and subscribed by every member of the Oireachtas
before taking his seat therein before the Representative of the Crown
or some person authorized by him.’

2. Article 55. This article provided for the appointment of ‘Extern’
Ministers, and the relevant portion of it is as follows : ‘Ministers who
shall not be members of the Executive Council may be appointed by
the Representative of the Crown and shall comply with the provisions
of Article 17 of this Constitution — ’

3. Article 50. This confers the power of amending the Constitution.
As amended during the Cosgrave Administration, the relevant por-
tion reads : ‘Amendments of this Constitution within the terms of the
Scheduled Treaty may be made by the Oireachtas, but no such amend-
ment, passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, after the expiration
of a period of sixteen years from the date of the coming into operation
of this Constitution, shall become law, unless the same shall . . . have
been submitted to a Referendum of the people. . . . Any such amend-
ment may be made within the said period of sixteen years by way of
ordinary legislation.’

4. Article 65. This article, which is self-explanatory, reads as
follows : ‘The judicial power of the High Court shall extend to the
question of the validity of any law having regard to the provisions of
the Constitution. In all cases in which such matters shall come into
question, the High Court alone shall exercise original jurisdiction.’

306 SENATE AND THE PARLIAMENTARY OATH

The article which next follows (66) confers appellate jurisdiction on
the Supreme Court in regard to the same matters.

So much being clear, let us see what Mr. De Valera’s Bill purported
to do.

First, it deleted Article 17 of the Constitution, and also the words
‘and shall comply with the provisions of Article 17 of this Constitu-
tion ’ in Article 55 (which relates to ‘ Extern ’ Ministers).

Second, it purported to delete Section 2 of the Constitution Act
itself. This is the section which gives the Treaty the force of law, and
provides that any amendment of the Constitution which is repugnant
to the Treaty shall be inoperative.

Third, it purported to amend Article 50 of the Constitution by
deleting the words ‘within the terms of the Scheduled Treaty’. This
is the article which prescribes the method of amending the Constitu-
tion.

Article 4 of the Treaty, which contains the Oath but not the machi-
nery for it, was not referred to in the Bill.

The first of the proposals mentioned above removed the Oath from
the Constitution. The object of the second and third was to deprive
the High Court and Supreme Court (under Articles 65 and 66) of the
power to declare the Bill (when enacted) to be invalid, on the ground
that it was repugnant to the Treaty.

It was claimed that the Bill containing these grave provisions (in-
cluding the abrogation of the Treaty as part of the municipal law of
the Irish Free State) were in pursuance of a mandate sought and
obtained from the electors. It therefore becomes necessary to examine
whether this is so. The Fianna Fail Manifesto is dated the 9th
February 1932, and it is signed by Mr. De Valera. 1 He subsequently
stated that he had written it himself. 2 The first item for which a
mandate was sought was ‘to remove the Article of the Constitution
which makes the signing of the Oath of Allegiance obligatory on
members entering the D&il. This Article is not required by the Treaty.’
The Manifesto went on to say :

‘We pledge ourselves that, if elected in a majority, we shall not in
the field of international relations exceed the mandate here asked for
without again consulting the people

‘We ask the electors not to allow themselves to be deceived by the
misrepresentations of our opponents, and we pledge ourselves not to
abuse their confidence.’

In spite of this double pledge, the Bill proposed to deprive the

1 Irish Independents 11 February 1932. - Dail Debates , xli, 1084.

OATH SAID NOT TO BE OBLIGATORY 307

whole Treaty of the force of law and to deprive the judiciary of any
power to adjudicate upon the validity of the abolition of the Oath.
During the debate in the Dail Mr. MacDermot inquired whether the
Government considered the Treaty to have any validity, and, if so,
just what that validity amounted to. Mr. De Valera replied : ‘I am not
called upon to decide that question. We are not dealing with that.
We are simply putting the Treaty in its place. What that place is and
what its effect may be is another question altogether.’ 1 Not satisfied
with this reply, Mr. MacDermot asked later whether Mr. De Valera
considered the Treaty to be morally binding, and he answered:
‘ Whatever my own views may be about the foundation of the Treaty,
as a Government here we are acting within the mandate which accepts
the Treaty for the time being.’ Mr. Hogan asked, ‘That is what you
call a straight answer? ’ and Mr. De Valera said ‘ Yes.’ 2

It will be observed that, in Mr. De Valera’s manifesto, the state-
ment was made that ‘this Article is not required by the Treaty’, that
is to say, the Article of the Constitution which contains the Oath.
During the election campaign the abolition of the Oath was not a
prominent feature of Fianna Fail speeches, attention being given to
subjects more likely to attract votes, such as the retention of the Land
Annuities and the proposals for the relief of unemployment. But
whenever the subject was mentioned the question was argued on this
basis: that the Treaty Oath was optional and not compulsory, the
implication being that it was insisted upon by the Cosgrave Govern-
ment for the purpose of penalizing its political opponents. Thus, Mr.
De Valera said at Claremorris on the 31st January 1932: ‘The re-
moval of the oath would not mean tearing up the Treaty. It was men-
tioned in the Treaty, but not made obligatory.’ 3 As this statement
seems to be inconsistent with fact, let us examine the argument on
which it is founded. The words in Article 4 of the Treaty are, ‘The
oath to be taken by Members of the Parliament of the Irish Free
State shall be in the following form. . . The article does not state
that ‘the oath shall be taken’ but merely refers to ‘the oath to be
taken’. Hence — so the argument runs— if the members insist on
.taking an oath, this must be the one they shall take ; but, unless they
so desire, they need take no oath at all. This extraordinary argument
was resurrected from 1922, when the Bill to enact the Constitution
was before the Constituent Assembly. Mr. O’Higgins then dealt with
' it as follows (20th September 1922) :

i Dail Debates, xJi, 1132. 2 Ibid., xli, 1 179.

s Irish Independent, 1 February 1932.

308 SENATE AND THE PARLIAMENTARY OATH

‘I would like that some Deputy other than myself would undertake
the task of arguing that particular point across the table with British
Ministers, particularly when we remember that in the last stages of
the negotiations for this Treaty there was quite considerable tension
about this matter of the Oath, and that eminent British lawyers and
eminent British politicians racked their brains to devise some form or
another that would be least objectionable to Irish sentiment by safe-
guarding the particular position they wished to safeguard. Finally
they sat down at a table, and with considerable labour brought forth
this particular form, and we are asked to believe all this trouble and
racking of brains and head-scratching was about an Oath which was
to be purely optional, and which a Member need only take if he had a
stomach for it later. That, to my mind, is not a serious argument; it
shows a finicky, irresponsible outlook which should be no part
of those responsible for the government of this country to cater
for.’ 1

Nevertheless, this is the argument on the faith of which Mr. De
Valera obtained the mandate, such as it was, to abolish the Oath.
When the Bill came before the Dail, however, he incontinently
dropped it. ‘I am not making the contention, and have not made the
contention at any time that I remember, that the whole question of
the Oath is to be determined by the meaning of Article 4 in itself. It
is not.’ 2 The new argument was something quite different. The words
‘to be taken’ in Article 4 ‘might’ be explicable by reference to
Article 2. Article 2 provided that ‘the law, practice and constitu-
tional usage governing the relationship of the Crown or the repre-
sentative of the Crown and of the Imperial Parliament to the Domi-
nion of Canada shall govern their relationship to the Irish Free State’.
But the members of the Canadian Parliament took a direct oath of
allegiance to the King. A different oath was prescribed in the case of
the Irish Free State. Therefore the opening words of Article 4 meant :
‘The oath to be taken by Members of the Parliament of the Irish
Free State shall be [not the Canadian oath, but an oath] in the follow-
ing form.’ But the Canadian Parliament, owing to the co-equality of
status subsequently achieved, was free to repeal the Oath at any time.
Therefore the Irish Free State could do the same. This is a fair sum-
mary of Mr. De Valera’s new argument. 3

It is, of course, by no means the same thing as his pre-election
statements that the Oath was not required by the Treaty and was not
made obligatory. He based his ability to abolish the Oath frankly on

1 Dail Debates, i, 480, 481 . 2 Ibid., xli, 927. 2 Ibid., xli, 927, 928.

OATH AND STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER 309

the Statute of Westminster, 1 but for this very reason his new argu-
ment could not have been put before the electors. The whole status
of the Irish Free State had been persistently decried, belittled, arid
derided from the beginning. He had himself described its Parliament
‘frankly as a non-sovereign, subordinate, twenty-six County institu-
tion’ (1926). His party newspaper had held it up to odium as a ‘faked
parliament’, which was ‘illegitimate’ (1929). The Statute of West-
minster could not have applied to the Irish Free State in the absence
of a resolution passed in due form by both Houses of its Parliament.
But this resolution was fiercely opposed by Mr. De Valera’s followers,
and Mr. O’Kelly, now become Vice-President, said that the whole
object was ‘to nail us, to copper-fasten us, for ever to the British
Empire and its King’ (1931). 2 Less than twelve months later Mr. De
Valera referred to ‘the recognition of co-equal status which has been
fully recognized by the British Parliament in the Statute of West-
minster. We are, therefore, to-day quite free to do anything here
without any violation of the Treaty, anything that they can do in
Canada, anything that they can do in Australia or New Zealand,
anything that they can do in Britain as regards relations with the
Crown.’ 3 This was, however, after the election. If Mr. De Valera had
stated in his election manifesto that the Irish Free State Parliament
was now a completely sovereign assembly, free to abolish the Oath
if it wished, such a volte face would have been misunderstood by the
electors. But a simple assertion that the Oath was not required by the
Treaty was intelligible to everybody.

The Bill was piloted through the Dail by Mr. De Valera himself.
Of the two lawyers in his Cabinet, one, the Minister for Justice (now
the Hon. Mr. Justice Geoghegan), took no part in the debate, though
he was present in the Chamber and voted in all of the nine divisions;
the other was the Attorney-General (now the Hon. Mr. Justice
Maguire, President of the High Court), but his contribution was in-
considerable. It was, however, remarkable for the assertion that the
proposal to delete Section 2 of the Constituent Act (designed to pre-
vent the courts from pronouncing on the constitutionality of the aboli-
tion of the Oath) was ‘necessary in order to prevent any judicial mis-
representation of the position’. 4 This must be one of the most extra-
ordinary statements ever made by the law officer of a government.

Mr. De Valera’s case was inherently weak, because it was patent
that he had exceeded his mandate and that the Oath was made obli-

2 Ibid., xxxix, 2310.

« Ibid., xli, 1019.

1 DM Debates, xli, 1090, 1091.

2 Ibid., xli, 1090, 1091.

310 SENATE AND THE PARLIAMENTARY OATH

gatory by the Treaty. It w£s accordingly obvious that, while he could
legally remove the Oath under the powers given by the Statute of
Westminster, he could not do so without violating the Treaty. In the
circumstances, it was unfortunate for him that he had opposed to him
across the floor of the House such brilliant constitutional lawyers as
Mr. McGilligan and the late Mr. T. A. Finlay, K.C. ; and he un-
doubtedly fared very badly at their hands. At times his arguments
were quite bewildering. He refused to negotiate about the Oath .be-
cause it was *a domestic matter’; 1 but he said a few minutes later
that he would not allow the judges to review his proposals because
it was ‘ a wrong principle to have the courts deciding an international
matter’. 2 His statement that Canada could legally remove the Oath,
and that the Irish Free State could therefore do the same, 3 is not in
accordance with the facts. The Parliamentary Oath for Canada is
contained in Section 128 of the British North America Act, 1867;
and Section 7 of the Statute of Westminster states that nothing in the
statute shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or altera-
tion of the British North America Act. Canada could doubtless
secede from the Commonwealth, and if she did so the Oath would
go. But, apart from secession, she could abolish it only after negotia-
tion with Great Britain and the other members of the Common-
wealth. Mr. De Valera proposed neither formal secession nor
negotiation.

Amid this congeries of alternative and sometimes conflicting argu-
ments, we are constrained to the conclusion that Mr. De Valera was
merely engaged in making a case for a course of action which had
been predetermined; and the strength of his faith in the legality of
that case may be gauged by his efforts to exclude it from the purview
of the judiciary.

An amendment of the Constitution must, of course, be held to be
valid unless and until it is declared by the courts to be invalid, under
the power conferred by Articles 65 and 66. But in view of certain
known facts, it is interesting to speculate what the result would have
been if the constitutionality of the Constitution (Removal of Oath)
Act had ever been tested in the courts. Article 50 states that amend-
ments of the Constitution within the terms of the Scheduled Treaty
may be made, but it gives no power to the Oireachtas to amend the
Constitution Act, of which the Constitution is the First Schedule.
The Constitution (Removal of Oath) Act became law on the 3rd May

1 Ddil Debates , xli, 1182; and see Senate Debates, xv, 610.

2 Ddil Debates, xli, 1 1 83. 3 ibid., xli, 928.

VIEWS OF THE SUPREME COURT 311

1933, being passed over the head of the Senate. It purported, inter
alia, to delete Section 2 of the Constitution Act, which gives the
Treaty the force of law and says that any amendment of the Constitu-
tion which is repugnant to the Treaty shall be inoperative. At that
time, the Supreme Court consisted of Chief Justice Kennedy, the Hon.
Mr. Justice Fitzgibbon, and the Hon. Mr. Justice Mumaghan. The
composition of the court remained unchanged until the death of the
Chief Justice in December 1936. In the year 1934 the question whether
Article 2 a (the Military Tribunal Article) was a valid amendment of
the Constitution fell to be decided by the Supreme Court on appeal
from the High Court, and the question was answered in the affirma-
tive, Chief Justice Kennedy dissenting. 1 The three judgements were
delivered on the 19th December 1934, and in them the power of
constitutional amendment was extensively reviewed. The court was
not called upon to decide whether or not the Irish Free State Parlia-
ment (Oireachtas) had power to amend the Constitution Act, but all
three judges referred to the point in their several judgements.

Chief Justice Kennedy stated (page 204} that ‘it is not within the
power of the Oireachtas to alter, or amend or repeal’ the Consti-
tution Act; and he cited Section 2 of the Act and treated it as
law.

Mr. Justice Fitzgibbon also cited Section 2, and treated it as law;
and he said (page 226) : ‘It is further to be observed that this power
to make amendments is limited to “ amendments of this Constitution ”, 2
and that the Constituent Assembly did not confer upon the Oireachtas
any power to amend the Constituent Act itself.’

Mr. Justice Murnaghan also cited Section 2, and treated it as law
(page 241).

There thus emerges the astonishing fact that, more than a year
after the enactment of the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Act, all
three members of the Supreme Court ignored its most vital provision,
namely, the deletion of Section 2 of the Constitution Act. The Chief
Justice and Mr. Justice Fitzgibbon went further, and stated expressly
that there was no power to do what had, in fact, been done ; and Mr.
Justice Murnaghan, whose judgement was delivered last, did not dis-
sent from this view.

We must now revert to 1932 and consider the manner in which the
Bill was dealt with by the Senate. Taken as a whole, the discussion was
disappointing, and the reason is not far to seek. For a first-class

1 The State (Ryan and Others) v. Lennon and Others, [1935] I.R. 170-245.

2 The italics and quotation marks are in the original.

312 SENATE AND THE PARLIAMENTARY OATH .

parliamentary debate the participants must be evenly matched, and
in previous debates in the Second Chamber this had frequently been
the case. Before 1932 the proportion of able Senators was still very
high, and they often took different views ; also, the Ministers who
were sometimes opposed to them were for the most part capable men.
The discussion on the Oath Bill revealed a change. The issue was a
fundamental one, and, with very few exceptions (such as Senators
Johnson and Colonel Moore), no Senator of ability was in favour of
it. The result was a one-sided affair, with Mr. De Valera receiving
virtually no help from his followers in meeting the arguments of
Opposition speakers, such as Senator Brown, K.C. (admittedly the
best authority on legal interpretation in the country) and Senators
Milroy, Douglas, Miss Browne, Vincent, Sir John Keane, and num-
erous others.

There were two courses open to the Senate : either to reject the Bill
outright or to amend it (a) by removing its most objectionable provi-
sions such as the clause which deleted Section 2 of the Constitution
Act, and (b) by inserting a new clause to provide that the Bill should
not come into effect until an agreement had been reached with the
other party to the Treaty of 1921. The second alternative was chosen.
The Bill was given a Second Reading by 21 votes to 8, and as it
emerged from the Senate it merely deleted Article 17 of the Constitu-
tion and made a consequential amendment in Article 55, with the
following new clause added : .

‘This Act shall not come into force until an Agreement has beed
entered into between the Government of the Irish Free State and the
British Government providing that Article 4 of the Treaty of 1921
shall cease to have effect and such Agreement has been ratified and
approved by Resolution of Ddil £ireann.’

These amendments gave effect to the view, which was implicit in
the original Bill, that the deletion of the Oath was a breach of the
Treaty. They brought the Bill into harmony with the pledge given in
Mr. De Valera’s election manifesto that ‘we shall not in the field of
international relations exceed the mandate here asked for without
again consulting the people’. Further, the new clause gave him the
opportunity of acting in the spirit of the following promise contained
in the same manifesto :

‘We shall strive also to bring British statesmen to realize that the
interests of Britain, as well as the interests of Ireland, are best secured
by an understanding and settlement which will permit the people of
the two islands to live side by side as independent friendly neighbours

THE DEBATE ON THE OATH BILL 313

—each respecting the rights of the other and co-operating freely in
matters of common concern.’

Mr. De Valera opened the debate on the Second Reading and re-
peated his familiar arguments. He implied, but did not expressly state,
that the Oath was not made obligatory by the Treaty. It was an im-
position on the people of Ireland from outside, and it could be
abolished without violating the Treaty. The nations of the Common-
wealth were now co-equal; Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and
South Africa could get rid of their parliamentary oath if they so
wished, and therefore the Irish Free State could do the same. It was
no answer to say that there might be no inclination on the part of
the others to do so. 1

Senator Douglas, who followed, pointed out that, though there
had been great constitutional development since the Treaty was
signed, the fundamental basis remained the same. The Irish Free
State had taken a prominent part in that development, but only be-
cause they had presented their case in a friendly manner. Only five
common forms remained :

1. The King as head of the Commonwealth, with his representative
in each nation, nominated by the respective governments.

2. The King as an integral part of each parliament, which consists
of the King and two Houses.

3. The King as nominal head of the executive, acting only on the
advice of his Ministers.

4. An oath to His Majesty taken by all members of parliament in
each State.

5. An obligation to consult together from time to time on all
matters of general interest, and, in particular, to consult with any, or
all, of the other governments on any matter which any of them may
consider likely to affect their interests in any way.

It was a very proper matter for discussion how far any of the first
four were essential ; but the fundamental link was the absolute obliga-
tion to consult on any matter which any of the nations within the
Commonwealth group believed to be of common concern.®

The speech of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Senator
Connolly) was wholly on an emotional plane, and revealed the depth
of anti-British feeling among Mr. De Valera’s associates. He referred
to ‘the so-called civilization imposed by the British Empire all over
the world, that has brought about to a great extent the ruin that exists
at the present time’. As for the overseas members of the Common-
1 Senate Debates, xv, 673-85. 2 Ibid., xv, 685-96.

314 SENATE AND THE PARLIAMENTARY OATH

wealth: ‘I hold nothing is more despicable, particularly to the mind
of the people of Canada, Australia, and South Africa, than pretend-
ing to feel for Britain a loyalty that they know damned well we do not
believe.’ Senators were threatened with what would happen if they
failed to pass the Bill: ‘If you people in the Senate come in here at
three o’clock out of your motors, or out of First Class carriages pro-
vided for you by the State, and are not sufficiently in touch with the
people to realize the mentality and spirit of the people, the sooner
you are wakened up the better, because if you go on legislating in
that spirit you are in for a very rude awakening. . . . We are deter-
mined that this Bill will go through and the Senate can throw it out
if it will and take the consequences.’ 1

Senator Brown, who said that he had listened to Senator Connolly’s
speech with considerable pain, stated that, speaking as one who had
spent more than forty years in the study and practice of the law, he
had no doubt that the Bill was a breach of the Treaty. Mr. De Valera
seemed to him to argue in an intellectual atmosphere of four dimen-
sions, and he found it quite impossible to follow his argument. The '
British Commonwealth of Nations was an international partnership
at will, and one of the fundamental conditions of that partnership
was the duty of friendly consultation before taking any action in a
matter of common concern. The refusal to negotiate was a bad case
of inferiority complex— the partner who is equal in fact but is not
conscious of his equality. 2

Senator O’Farrell, who voted for the Bill out of party loyalty,
made one of the most effective speeches against it.

‘I look upon the introduction of lawyers at this stage to invent
excuses for us as a most undignified and cowardly proceeding. A
crafty lawyer may try to make crooked roads look straight, but he
cannot for long deceive anybody possessed of average intelligence.
Surely the Treaty debates show beyond mistaking that Deputies, both
for and against the Treaty, believed the Oath to be mandatory? That
was the main bone of contention, and we are now told at this stage
that this is not so, and, if that is the position, are we to be told that
the devastating civil war was embarked upon, that blood and treasure
were dissipated, and an aftermath of bitterness created which still
poisons the well-springs of every department of public life in this
country in order to get rid of a test which could have been disposed
of peacefully by simply omitting it from the Constitution, without in
any way violating the Treaty? If that is the contention, then I say the
1 Senate Debates, xv, 732-46. = Ibid., xv, 749-54.

THE OATH BILL SUSPENDED 315

ghosts of the dead should haunt the waking and sleeping hours of
those responsible for that terrible holocaust. Ten years after the start
of the civil war, we have the legal camp-followers of Fianna Fdil
called in to absolve their party from the charge of Treaty-breaking in
removing the Oath. What a pity they were not called in in 1922 in-
stead of 1932! . . .

- ‘Failure to enter into negotiations has always presented itself to
me as a sign of weakness instead of strength. It is not bravery, but
bravado. The President and his party are too disposed to mistake
jingoism for patriotism, and a worm’s eye view for a national out-
look.’ 1 *

The Bill was finally passed by the Senate, with the amendments
indicated, on the 28th June 1932.® The amendments were all dis-
agreed with by the Dail on the following 12th July. 3 Eight days later
the Senate insisted upon them. 4 On the 19th October the Government
informed the Ddil that it proposed to take no further action. 5 The
suspensory period was thus to be allowed to run its course. As the
Bill had been received from the D&il on the 19th May (curiously
enough, exactly four years before the Senate held its final meeting
before abolition), the period would expire on the 18th November
1933, unless a general election intervened. This, of course, proved to
be the case. ,

The fact that this Bill, which contained so much explosive material,
was debated by the Senate without anything approaching disorder
was due partly to the restraint placed upon themselves by the majority
and partly to the firm yet tactful handling by the Chairman of a diffi-
cult situation. The absence of strict regimentation among the parties
manifested itself in various ways. A Labour member of the Dail
could hardly have delivered with impunity the speech made by
• Senator O’Farrell. The Cosgrave party had evidently decided to let
the Second Reading pass without a division, yet several of its mem-
bers voted against the Bill in the division which took place. Senator
MacKean, who had been active in forming the Cosgrave party at the
end of 1928, actually voted with Fianna Fail in all the divisions on the
Bill, but he was not expelled from the party.

The Oath Bill was the only measure suspended by the Senate during
the year 1932. The principle of some of the other Bills may have been
repugnant to the House as a whole, but it had no desire whatever

1 Senate Debates, xv, 802-13.

3 bail Debates, xliii, 615-717.

6 DM Debates, xliv, 16.

2 Ibid., xv, 1090-1101
4 Senate Debates, xv,

1429-34.

316 SENATE AND THE PARLIAMENTARY OATH

to obstruct the Government in regard to matters which, however
distasteful, were not fundamental. An outstanding example was pro-
vided by the Army Pensions Bill. This Bill was sponsored by Mr.
Frank Aiken, who had been Chief of Staff of the Irish Republican
Army during the Civil War and was now Minister for Defence of the
Irish Free State. Its object was to provide wound pensions and dis-
ability pensions for those who fought against the State as members
of the Irish Republican Army and kindred organizations, up to 30th
September 1923. As a measure of appeasement, there was something
to be said for this proposal if it were accompanied by an assurance of
finality. At the time the Bill was introduced the Irish Republican
Army was still in existence, it was still armed, and its objects were the
same as before Mr. Aiken had left it, namely, the destruction of the
Irish Free State by force. In order to elicit, if possible, an assurance of
finality, Mr. MacDermot raised the matter in the Dail. He said : ‘May
I ask the Minister one question? I am exceedingly moved by the ap-
peal for appeasement that he has made in order to justify this Bill. I
should like to feel that it does not commit one to any shaking of the
fundamental principles — in other words, that we can rely on the
Fianna F&il Party to accept it as their definite policy that they will
always defend against armed interference the institutions accepted
by the majority in this country.’ Mr. Aiken gave the following
answer : ‘ Deputy MacDermot can always rely on Fianna F&il and the
members of their party doing what they think best for Ireland and the
Irish people.’ 1 In spite of this ominous reply, which was quoted in
the Senate, the Bill was passed through that House without amend-
ment, no division being challenged upon it at any stage. It probably
did more to reconcile the extremists to Mr. De Valera than did the
Bill to abolish the Oath.

The Emergency Imposition of Duties Bill was another measure of
grave import of which the passage was facilitated in every way by
the Senate. This Bill was a retaliatory measure against the British
for their action in imposing Customs duties to collect the amount of
land annuities which were in default. It was introduced in the Ddil
on Thursday, 14th July, and was passed by that House on the follow-
ing day, under the closure. Before it had left the D&il the Government
requested the Chairman of the Senate to summon a meeting for the
Saturday, and to accept a motion to take all stages of the Bill on that
day. This was the very kind of ‘indecent’ haste of which Fianna Fdil
had so bitterly complained when in opposition. The Chairman ex-

1 Dail Debates , xliv, 254.

SENATE’S ATTITUDE TO GOVERNMENT 317

pressed his willingness, and Monday was agreed to as the meeting
day, the notice for Saturday being impossibly short. The provisions
of the Bill, and of the recommendations made to it by the Senate, will
be found referred to in the chapter on Money Bills (Chapter XXXII).
It is sufficient to say here that the Senate met on the Monday and
complied with the Government’s wishes by passing all the stages by
the following Wednesday.

In his speech in defence of the Senate, the Chairman revealed an
interesting fact concerning this Bill. Senators had high legal opinion
to the effect that it did not come within the definition of a Money Bill
contained in the Constitution. It was open to them to demand a
Committee of Privileges upon it, and if they had done so the result
might have been disastrous for the Government. ‘The matter was
privately discussed, and the leaders of the Independent Group threw
their whole weight against it, on 'the ground that it was unfair and
undemocratic to deprive the Government of a weapon which they
regarded as of supreme importance in the prosecution of the so-called
. economic war. The proposal was thereupon dropped.’ 1 These were
the men who were being continuously reviled by Mr. De Valera’s
followers as pro-British and anti-national.

The ordinary, unobtrusive work of revision went on just as it had
done under the Cosgrave Administration, but this most important
function of a Second Chamber was discharged almost exclusively by
the Opposition. A few amendments which represented the Govern-
ment’s afterthoughts were formally moved by the Minister for Posts
and Telegraphs (Senator Connolly), but little attempt at indepen-
dent revision was made by Fianna Fail. The two Bills which gave
most trouble were the Control of Prices Bill and the Control of
Manufactures Bill, both of which were rendered necessary by the
Government’s new economic policy. The Senate inserted thirty-four
amendments in the former, all of which were agreed to by the Dail.
In the Control of Manufactures Bill, which reached the Senate in a
very faulty state, twenty-nine amendments were inserted, of which all
but six were finally agreed to, and these six were not insisted upon by
the Senate. During this short period of nine months, twenty-two non-
Money Bills were dealt with altogether (exclusive of the Oath Bill) ;
sixteen of these were passed unamended ; in the remaining six, a
total of no less than ninety-four amendments was inserted, of which
all but six were agreed to by the other House.

The Senate could thus fairly claim that it had emerged from this
1 Senate Debates, xviii, 1248.

318 SENATE AND THE PARLIAMENTARY OATH

difficult year with credit. The position is never easy when the Govern-
ment of the day is in a minority in the Upper House, but the Senate
had faithfully discharged its duty to the people. It had, it is true,
suspended the Oath Bill, but this Bill went far beyond the mandate
asked for and alleged to have been obtained ; and the weight of argu-
ment, both on legal and on moral grounds, was overwhelmingly
against it. Other Bills about which Senators had grave misgivings
were passed unamended, out of a desire not to impede or obstruct the
Government; and where Bills reached the Senate in an imperfect
state the necessary amendments were inserted. Between Senators and
those Ministers whose measures brought them frequently to the
House there were symptoms of a growing cordiality which might in
happier circumstances have been a hopeful augury for the future.

CHAPTER XIX

THE BLUE SHIRTS AND THE IRISH
REPUBLICAN ARMY

The election campaign— Mr. De Valera's policy— Programmes of
the other parties — Class issues — 1 No free speech for traitors' — The
Army Comrades Association ensures a free election — Mr. Cosgrove's
escort of military and police — Result of the general election of January
1933 — Mr. De Valera's decisive victory — The figures examined— The
mandate exceeded— Hope of the Government Chief Whip— Cardinal
MacRory and England— Ministerial changes — The Oath Bill again
sent to the Senate — Second Reading declined— The Bill becomes law —
Other Bills amending the Constitution — Abolition of Privy Cotmcil
appeals— Attitude of the British Government— Mr. De Valera's re-
joinder in the Senate — Progress of the economic war— Plans for in-
dustrialization — The internal situation — Recruiting for the Irish Re-
publican Army— Extremist activities— The Army Comrades Associa-
tion adopts the blue shirt uniform — General O' Dufy's dismissal — The
Army Comrades Association becomes the National Guard— General
O'Duffy elected leader— Aims of the new organization— All firearms
licences revoked — Mr. De Valera denounces the National Guard — He
contrasts it with the Irish Republican Army — Mr. De Valera's virtual
dictatorship— His attitude to political opponents— Banning of proposed
parade of the National Guard— RecruitmetU into the police of ex-
members of the Irish Republican Army — Sir John Keane's motion in
the Senate— The National Guard proclaimed an unlawful association—
The Military Tribunal re-established— Inconsistency of the Govern-
ment — Formation of the United Ireland Party — The National Guard
becomes the Young Ireland Association — Its policy — The Waterford
farmers— The ‘ Boycott Bass' campaign— Outrages against the United
Ireland Party— Forbearance of its members— Domiciliary visits by the
police— The Young Ireland Association proclaimed an unlawful associa-
tion— The Young Ireland Association becomes the League of Youth-

319

320 BLUE SHIRTS AND IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY

Legal reverses for the Government — Mr. De Valera pleads with the
extremists — The Dundalk bomb affair — Rioting in Drogheda — Mr. De ‘
Valera's difficulties — Introduction of the Wearing of Uniform ( Restric-
tion ) Bill— Its passage by the Dail under the guillotine.

Mr. De Valera’s decision to dissolve the D£il took all parties by
surprise, including his own. As there was an interval of only three
weeks between the Proclamation and the general election, the cam-
paign was mercifully short. It is perhaps unnecessary to state that the
declaration of a republic formed no part of the Government’s pro-
gramme; such a proposal would have been an invitation to disaster.
In his inaugural speech in Dublin on the 5th January Mr. De Valera
reiterated his plans for the development of industries by protective
duties and for increased tillage. The Land Annuities would be perma-
nently retained, but the amount payable by the farmers would bei
reduced by half. A few days before the poll he issued a manifesto in
which he stated that he desired the friendliest relations with England,
but that lasting peace could be achieved only on the basis that the
people of Ireland should be free to determine for themselves what
their governmental institutions were to be. In the same manifesto he
announced his intentions regarding Parliament in a passage which
became important in the light of subsequent events : ‘We propose to
abolish the Senate as at present constituted and, if it be decided to
retain a Second Legislative Chamber, it is our intention to reduce
considerably the number of its members. We propose also to reduce
substantially the number of Deputies in the Diil.' 1 As we shall see
later, this pronouncement was afterwards relied upon as conferring
a mandate to establish a unicameral legislature. Any mandate re-
ceived for the proposal in the second paragraph was not fulfilled. The
number of Deputies was later reduced from 153 to 138, but the re-
duction was in accordance with Article 26 of the Constitution, which
prescribed a decennial review in accordance with changes in popula-
tion. Apart from this Article, the only reduction effected was by the
abolition of the six university members. For this, no mandate was
sought or obtained.

Mr. Cosgrave promised, if returned to power, to end the economic
war in three days, to reduce the Land Annuities by half, and to suspend
payment of them by the farmers for two years. He reassured manu-

1 Irish Press, 21 January 1933.

‘NO FREE SPEECH FOR TRAITORS’ 321

facturers by undertaking to make no drastic changes in existing
tariffs without due investigation, and gave a message to the electors
of courage and hope instead of suffering and sacrifice.

The new National Centre Party, led by Mr. MacDermot, was out-
side the dissensions of the two principal parties. It stood for the
honourable observance of international obligations, which alone
could ensure a speedy and favourable settlement of the economic
war.

The Labour Party, which had fared so disastrously in 1932, and
which was now led by Mr. Norton, nominated only nineteen candi-
dates, so that its best hope was that Mr. De Valera should be returned
to power but made dependent on its votes.

Little reference was made during the campaign to the Republic
and the Oath of Allegiance, and the economic war was represented
as a struggle against English aggression, in which the Opposition, the
National Centre Party, and the Senate were on the side of the enemy.
As polling day drew nearer, greater emphasis was laid by Govern-
ment spokesmen on the social side of their policy, and a direct appeal
was made for the votes of the labourers and the small farmers by a
promise of more relief schemes and increased bounties. It was the
first general election held in Ireland in which class issues were raised,
and the Irish Press boasted in a leading article that the Government
party was the only one which considered the poor. 1

The condition of the country by this time was such that there were
serious doubts whether a free election would be possible. Grave dis-
order occurred at Mr. Cosgrave’s meeting in Dublin on the 8th
January, at which the Irish Press protested in the strongest manner.
But it was hardly to be supposed that, after ten months’ toleration,
the Irish Republican Army would be amenable to mere protests, even
from the Government newspaper. Attempts were made to put into
effect the slogan, ‘No Free Speech for Traitors’, and but for the
Army Comrades Association the right of public meeting would have
been reduced to a farce. At a meeting of the Cosgrave party at Port-
arlington on the 6th January the leader of the organization, Dr.
O’Higgins, prevented a fracas by telling his men, who were moving
towards the interrupters, to remain where they were. He then ad-
dressed the rowdy element as follows: ‘You men know, as I know,
that the men behind me are the best and, if it comes to a fight, the
toughest element in the country. We stand for fair play for all parties ;
but, if only one party is to have fair play in this election, we are going
1 Issue of 18 January 1933.

322 BLUE SHIRTS AND IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY

to see that all parties will be put on level terms.’ 1 The same protection
was given to the National Centre Party, and Mr. James Dillon told
of his experience in Macroom : ‘I there addressed about 700 people,
and shortly after I began thirty or forty supporters of the Govern-
ment came down and started to shout “Up De Valera” to prevent
me from speaking. At that time the Army Comrades Association was
in existence, but I had no connection with it. They stood for the right
of free speech. About sixty members of the A.C.A. in Macroom went
back and, in my hearing, said to those young men who had been
interrupting, “Now, stop interrupting or go away, and let the speaker
address the meeting.” They would not do so. The man in charge of
those A.C.A. looked up at me and said, “Wait a minute, Mr.
Dillon.” He then went back to those fifty men and wiped the square
of Macroom with them, and there were no more interruptions.’ 2

Doubtless the Government did what was possible in the way of
protection with the forces at their disposal. But if it is made plain
that, in the Government’s view, a particular statesman needs to be
heavily protected from the wrath of the populace, that fact must
greatly militate against the success of his party. Mr. Cosgrave, who
easily headed the poll in Cork City, made this point :

‘What was my experience during the late electoral contest? I was
informed when I was having a meeting in Cork, going into the city,
not to enter by a certain road, that there was danger of an ambush,
and the information came from the Fianna Fail headquarters. I was
to approach Cork by a circuitous route, and at a later time. My
meeting was held up in Cork for an hour and a half. On the following
morning I was informed that I was to be escorted to Dublin by a
procession, a whole pilgrimage of military and police — an armoured
car, two military units and a C.I.D. car, so that anybody travelling
the country could see that there was no chance of that person being
elected anyhow.’ 3

The election was held on the 24th January, and the result is given
opposite. The figures in brackets indicate the party strength at the
dissolution on the basis of a full House. Actually, there were four
by-elections pending at the time. The result was thus a decisive victory
for the Government, which had gained five seats, and an even more
decisive reverse for the Cosgrave party, which had lost nine. The
Labour Party’s first preferences were down by 19,000, but owing to
the Proportional Representation system it actually gained a seat. The

1 Irish Times, 7 January 1933. a Ddil Debates, I, 2332.

a Ibid., xlviii, 2788, 2789.

RESULT OF THE GENERAL ELECTION 323

National Centre Party, fighting its first general election, had done
extraordinarily well, returning eleven members. In so far as Mr. De
Valera’s object had been to make himself independent of Labour he
had not succeeded. Exclusive of the Chairman, his party numbered
exactly half the House ; but with Labour support he could count on
a majority of sixteen.

Parly

Candidates

Members

nominated

elected

Fianna Fail (De Valera)

103

77 (72)

Cumann na nGaedheal (Cosgrave)

48 (57)

National Centre Party

11 [Farmers: 4]

Labour

8(7)

Independents

8(H)

Independent Labour

1(2)

246

153

In view of the momentous changes in the political fabric which
were to take place without further appeal to the people, it is impor-
tant to examine the extent to which the electors were behind Mr. De
Valera at this election. This is indicated by the first preferences,
which were as follows :*

Fianna F&il

689,043

Cumann na nGaedheal

422,443

National Centre Party

126,771

Labour

79,224

Independents (including Independent Labour)

68,888

Total

1,386,369

Thus the Government party obtained 689,043 first preferences, or
8,283 less than all others put together (697,326). At the 1932 election
a solemn personal pledge had been given by Mr. De Valera that his
party would not, in the field of international relations, exceed the
mandate then asked for (i.e. the removal of the Oath and the reten-
tion of the Land Annuities) without again consulting the people. No
fresh mandate was asked for at the 1933 election, at which his party
just failed to poll half the votes cast. And yet, without further refe-
rence to the people, the Representative of the Crown was first shorn
of his functions and then abolished altogether; the King was re-
1 Irish Independent , 28 January 1933.

324 BLUE SHIRTS AND IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY

moved from the Constitution and merely retained for external pur-
poses in an ordinary statute, which could be repealed at any time;
the Senate was abolished in order to facilitate this revolution; finally
the Parliament, now consisting of a Single Chamber, passed a new
Draft Constitution, which was declared to be ratified if approved by
a bare majority of the electors voting at a plebiscite, and the plebis-
. cite was held on the same day as a general election. There is here
much food for thought on the method by which a virtual dictator can
operate behind the facade of a parliamentary democracy.

The result of the 1933 election was hailed by Fianna Fail and the
Republicans as a triumph for Ireland over England. Mr. P. J. Little,
who very shortly afterwards became Parliamentary Secretary to
the President and Chief Whip of the Government party, said at
Waterford on the 29th January: ‘We can now say a fond farewell to
England. And let us hope that we shall see the British Empire going
down amidst the laughter of the Irish people.’ 1 In fairness to the
people of Ireland, there should be set against this and similar political
outbursts the following wise words of His Eminence the Cardinal
Archbishop of Armagh (Dr. MacRory), spoken a few months later
on his return to Ireland after having acted as Papal Legate at the
laying of the foundation stone of the Liverpool Catholic Cathedral :
‘I am glad I was sent to England, when I had to go to represent the
Pope, because I like England and have liked it for forty years. . . .
God set these two islands together, but man has succeeded for a
long time in keeping them apart. . . . The Irish people do not hate
the English people, nor do the English hate the Irish. They love
them.’ 2

Parliament reassembled on the 8th February, the Chairman was
re-elected, and Mr. De Yalera was nominated President of the Execu-
tive Council by 82 votes to 54, his proposer stating hopefully that he
looked forward to proposing him on the next occasion as President
of the Republic of the whole of Ireland. The Ministry was as before,
with minor changes. Mr. James Geoghegan, K.C., who afterwards
was elevated to the Bench, ceased to be Minister for Justice. His place
was taken by Mr. Ruttledge, who handed over the portfolio of Lands
to Senator Connolly, Mr. Gerald Boland succeeding to the vacant
Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs. 3

We shall first consider events in the external field. The Bill to
abolish the Oath was again sent to the Senate on the 1st March 1933,

1 Waterford News, 3 February 1933. a f ns / t independent, 8 June 1933.

= Dai! Debates, xlvi, ,1 7-30.

THE OATH BILL BECOMES LAW 325

the Dail passing the necessary resolution by 75 votes to 49. 1 The
subsequent history of the Bill more properly belongs to the next
chapter, which deals with the history of the Senate; but it is con-
venient to refer to it here, because of the effect which its enactment
should logically have had on Mr. De Valera’s attitude towards the
Irish Republican Army. The Bill came before the Senate on the 15th
March. Mr. De Valera stated that nothing he had heard in the de-
bates had in the slightest degree weakened his view that the proposal
was not a breach of the Treaty. The majority of Senators thought
otherwise, and as a matter of principle declined to give the Bill a
Second Reading. Instead, the following resolution was passed by 24
votes to 16: ‘That the Senate declines further to consider the Consti-
tution (Removal of Oath) Bill, 1933 until it has been made the subject
of negotiation between the Executive Council and the British Govern-
ment with a view to an amicable agreement.’ 8 The Bill was thus sus-
pended for sixty days from the 1st March. On the 3rd May the formal
motion of enactment came before the D&il. Speaking to the motion,
Mr. De Valera said, ‘Once this Oath is removed you will have a
complete change of attitude on the part of the people of the country.’
This being contrary to all reasonable expectation, he safeguarded
himself by mentioning later that he did not expect a change altogether
overnight. 3 The motion was passed by 76 votes to 56, and the Bill was
signed by the Representative of the Crown on the same day (3rd
May 1933). It remained to be seen whether Mr. De Valera would
continue to tolerate the armed menace to the State constituted by the
Irish Republican Army.

Three other Bills amending the Constitution were enacted during
this period. The Constitution (Amendment No. 20) Bill transferred
from the Governor-General to the Executive Council the power
of recommending the appropriation of money; and the Con-
stitution (Amendment No. 21) Bill abolished the Governor-
General’s power to withhold the King’s assent to Bills and to reserve
them for the signification of the King’s pleasure. These powers being
purely formal, the object of the two measures was clearly to assimi-
late the Constitution to the Republican ideal. The third Bill, the
Constitution (Amendment No. 22) Bill, abolished the right of appeal
to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. When the Cosgrave
Administration was in office it had tried to achieve this by consent,
and in any case it had rendered such appeal nugatory by ad hoc

i Dail Debates, xlvi, 68-76. 2 Senate Debates, xvi, 650-96.

3 Dail Debates, xlvii, 438, 439.

326 BLUE SHIRTS AND IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY

legislation on more than one occasion. Hence, so far as the individual
citizen was concerned, the formal deprivation was more apparent
than real.

All three Bills were introduced in the Dail on the 9th August 1933,
and they passed through their various stages in the Senate, without
substantial opposition, by the end of October. The first two became
law on the 2nd November and the third on the 16th November. There
was an interesting sequel. On the 14th of the same month the Secre-
tary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. J. H. Thomas), in reply to a
Parliamentary Question in the House of Commons, stated that these
Bills involved a further repudiation of the Treaty, and that by
gradually eliminating the Crown from the Constitution the Irish
Free State was tending to lose the advantages of Commonwealth
membership. 1 2 The latter statement meant no more than that Mr. De
Valera could not expect to have his cake and eat it, which is a truism ;
but the opinion on the constitutional position seems manifestly un-
sound, as the action taken was clearly in conformity with the Statute
of Westminster. In a dispatch dated the 29th November, addressed
to Mr. Thomas, Mr. De Valera requested from the British Govern-
ment an unequivocal assurance that a decision of the Irish people to
secede from the Commonwealth would not be treated as a cause of
war or other aggressive action. In his reply, dated the 5th December,
Mr. Thomas pointed out that the Treaty had been duly accepted by
the elected representatives of the Irish Free State and confirmed at
succeeding general elections, and stated that the British Government
did ‘not feel called upon to say what attitude they would adopt in
circumstances which they regard as purely hypothetical’. 8

On the 6th December the Secretary of State for War (Lord
Hailsham) stated in the House of Lords that the Irish Free State
could not, consistently with the Treaty, abolish the right of appeal to
the Privy Council, and that its right to do so might be raised for
determination by the Privy Council itself. 3 As Canada had, a short
time previously, abolished this right in the case of criminal appeals,
it is difficult to understand the grounds on which this opinion was
based. It provided excellent propaganda for Mr. De Valera, who
availed himself of it in the Senate on the very next day. The occasion
was a motion approving the Report of the Imperial Economic Com-
mittee, with which the subject has no obvious connection. The

1 House of Commons Debates , cclxxxi, 726-9.

2 Full text of both Notes in House of Commons Debates, cclxxxiii, 1456-61.

3 House of Lords Debates, xc, 325-42.

‘BRITISH MARKET IS GONE FOR EVER’ 327

method which he adopted was peculiar but characteristic. He intro-
duced the motion in a short, perfunctory speech. In the debate which
ensued no reference was made to the Hailsham incident, but in
exercising his right of replying to the debate Mr. De Valera dealt
with it in detail. 1 This was a device on which the late Patrick Hogan
had previously animadverted strongly in the Ddil, and one with
which both Houses were to become familiar during the debates on
the abolition of the Senate.

The remaining external matter which falls to be dealt with is the
economic war. On the 7th March 1933 Mr. J. H. Thomas read to the
House of Commons a letter from the High Commissioner of the
Irish Free State, dated four days earlier, intimating his Government’s
decision to use for ‘normal Exchequer requirements’ the Land
Annuities and other withheld payments, which had hitherto been re-
tained in suspense accounts. 2 On the following day the Land (Pur-
chase Annuities Fund) Bill was introduced in the Dail ; it was certi-
fied as a Money Bill, and became law on the 30th March. Shortly
afterwards the accumulated funds were all spent. Even so, a rapproche-
ment might perhaps have been effected through intermediaries at the
World Economic Conference in July, but the will to negotiate was
unhappily absent. Speaking on the pact of non-economic aggression,
Senator Connolly, the Irish Delegate, went back over the centuries
to the Cromwellian plantations as an ‘historical background’, and
was ruled out of order by Dr. Colijn, the Prime Minister of the
Netherlands, who was in the chair. He thereupon left the Chamber
with his typewritten speech only half read. 3 This inability to discuss
present-day problems in terms of the present day is puzzling to
foreigners and distressing to ourselves.

Before the economic war Mr. De Valera had told the people that
Great Britain and Ireland were each other’s best customer. 4 He now
said (9th August 1933) that, owing to a change in Britain’s domestic
policy and not because of the dispute, ‘the British market is gone for
ever’. ‘If there is to be any hope of prosperity for this country it is by
reversing that policy which made us simply the kitchen garden for
supplying the British with cheap food.’ 5 More than six months later
he reiterated his conviction that ‘the British market was gone, and
gone for ever’. 6 The Minister for Lands (Senator Connolly) went fur-
ther. He said, ‘It had taken a hundred years to establish the cattle

1 Senate Debates, xvii, 2014-20.

2 House of Commons Debates, cclxxv, 983-7.

3 Irish Times, 14 July 1933. 4 Irish Independent, 1 1 February 1932.

5 Ddil Debates, xlix, 1609, 1610. 6 Irish Independent , 26 March 1934.

328 BLUE SHIRTS AND IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY

trade in this country, but with God’s help it would not take a hundred
years to kill it.’ 1 And again : ‘It was a damn good job that the English
cattle market had gone, as it would make the farmers realize that they
should take off their coats and till the land for production of food.’ 2

Throughout this period Mr. Lemass, who was easily the ablest
member of the Government, proceeded with his plans for the in-
dustrialization of the country; but the difficulty of his task was, of
course, immensely increased by the progressive deterioration of agri-
culture owing to the economic war. The increased unemployment due
to the impoverishment of the farmers had also its effect on the in-
ternal situation, which we are now about to consider.

After Mr. De Valera’s election success, to which it had in some
degree contributed, the Irish Republican Army went from strength
to strength and throve by immunity. In its issue of the 6th May
(three days after the abolition of the Oath) its official organ. An Pho-
blacht, announced a special recruiting campaign. Recruiting posters
appeared everywhere, and addresses were given in the provincial
newspapers to which recruits could report. A refusal to insert these
addresses would doubtless have involved severe penalties.

The Catholic Hierarchy were thoroughly alarmed, and several of
the bishops uttered grave warnings. For instance, on the 29th May
the Bishop of Kerry said : ‘Not only are they urging boys to join, but
I Understand that in many cases they are administering an oath to
bind their recruits. I want to tell you that any oath of that kind is not
binding. It is, first of all, a grievous sin to take it, and it is a sin to
keep it.’ 3 Other bishops, and in particular the Bishop of Galway,
impeached the Irish Republican Army and emphasized the dangers
of Communistic attempts to secure a foothold in Ireland. 4 Later, Mr.
De Valera stated that ‘the Bishop of Galway in what he said was
misled’. 6

On the morning of Saturday, the 27th May, a band of approxi-
mately sixty men, fully armed with new rifles and two Lewis guns,
arrived at the village of Ballinacarriga, County Cork, took possession
of a house without the owner’s consent, and indulged in militaiy
exercises throughout the week-end, to the terror of the inhabitants.
The Minister for Justice admitted the facts and stated that he did
not know how the new arms had got into the country. G

An Phoblacht of the same date contained a photograph entitled

1 Irish Independent, 9 June 1934.

3 Irish Times, 30 May 1933.

3 Dait Debates, 1, 2513.

2 Ibid., 19 Juno 1934.

4 Standard, 27 May 1933.
6 Ibid., xlviii, 8, 542-3.

DISMISSAL OF GENERAL O’DUFFY 329

1 Citizen Soldiers of the Republic’. It depicted a number of young men
lying prone and taking aim with rifles. This issue also printed an at-
tack on Superintendent Casserly, the head of the police in Drogheda,
for prosecuting five young men who had posted up recruiting posters.
He was described as ‘bitterly prejudiced against Republicans’. The
sequel followed on the 16th July, when, at half an hour after mid-
night, the Superintendent’s car and residence were riddled with
machine-gun bullets from close range. 1 If he had been in the car he
could hardly have escaped being murdered. Questions were asked in
the Ddil, but the miscreants were never brought to justice. Indeed,
on the second occasion the Government appeared to resent being
interrogated on the subject. 2

Other instances could be given, but sufficient has been said to indi-
cate the virtual anarchy which persisted long after the removal of
the Oath. Indeed, conditions were so bad by the middle of July that
Mr. MacDermot, the leader of the National Centre Party, who is a
man of moderate speech, stated that he did ‘not believe any man
since Cromwell has inflicted more harm on this countiy’ than Mr.
De Valera. 3

In face of this growing menace the Army Comrades Association
had, shortly after the election, reorganized itself as a civil, unarmed
organization, pledged to give disciplined service to the nation ; and
in the month of April 1933 it adopted the uniform of a blue shirt.
The new movement was at first immensely popular and it rapidly
gathered strength throughout the country. It was shortly to receive a
new leader, in the following circumstances.

On the 22nd February, a fortnight after the formation of the new
Government, General O’Duffy, the Commissioner of the Civic Guard,
was removed from office by the Executive Council. No charge was
made against him, Mr. De Valera merely stating that a change of
Commissioner was desirable in the public interest and that he did not
propose to give reasons or to say anything further. 4 General O’Duffy
had been appointed to his post by Kevin O'Higgins shortly after the
foundation of the State. Under him the Civic Guard had become one
of the finest police forces in Europe, and he had earned both the
confidence of the public and the affection of his men. He had been
present at O’Higgins’s death-bed, and it was to him that the dying
Vice-President had whispered that they had done good work and to
continue on the same lines. A motion of censure on the subject was

1 Irish Times, 17 July 1933.
3 Ibid., xlviii, 2766.

- Dai! Debates, xlix, 1628; 1, 187-8.
4 Ibid., xlvi, 33—5.

330 BLUE SHIRTS AND IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY

tabled by Mr. Cosgrave in the Dail, and in speaking to it Mr. De
Valera linked General O’Duffy’s dismissal with that of Mr. McNeill.
‘We say this, whether it be the Governor-General or the Chief of
Police, that as long as we are responsible for public policy we will
have men there in whom we have confidence.’ * Let us note that with-
out any of the bunkum— full confidence.’ 1 This argument might
have had some validity if the General had been dismissed soon after
Mr. De Valera’s advent to power in 1932, but hardly otherwise; and
the ordinary citizens could not be blind to the fact that General
O’Duffy’s removal had been demanded for months by An Phoblacht.
He was offered a post of equivalent monetary value in another
Department, but he rightly refused it. If he was not to be trusted as
Chief of Police he was not to be trusted anywhere in the public
service. The Government’s ineptitude in legal matters' was evidenced
by the fact that in the letter of dismissal the authority relied upon was
a repealed section of an Act. 2 There was legal authority to remove
the Commissioner without reason stated, but it was conferred by a
section of a subsequent Act.

At a meeting held in Dublin on the 20th July the name of the
Army Comrades Association was changed to the National Guard
and Dr. O’Higgins handed over the leadership to General O’Duffy,
who was unanimously elected Director-General. The new leader
announced that the aim of the National Guard would be to safe-
guard the national honour, the national interests, and the national
culture in the widest sense. The official uniform would be the blue
shirt. ‘The organization will keep within the law, and illegalities will
not be tolerated. Physical drill will be practised only as a means of
promoting good health, character, and discipline.’ 3

From this point onwards events moved rapidly. Under the Fire-
arms Act, 1925, thousands of persons, including bank officials, held
firearms certificates entitling them to carry revolvers for their personal
safety, their names being entered in a register kept by the police. All
the ex-Ministers had had such certificates since the assassination of
Kevin O’Higgins in 1927, and so had General O’Duffy and some
other members of the National Guard. A revocation order was now
issued, cancelling all firearms certificates, and on Saturday and
Sunday, the 29th and 30th July, the police paid domiciliary visits to
the holders, including the Chairman of the Senate, and collected
their revolvers. Most of the cx-Ministers complied, though the sur-

1 Dai! Debates, xlvi, 796-7.

3 Irish Times, 21 July 1933.

2 Tbid., xlvi, 806, 807.

MR. DE VALERA ON GENERAL O’DUFFY 331

render placed them in jeopardy, their protective guards having been
removed two months previously. Mr. Blythe refused to^give up his
weapon, on the ground that he was not going to allow himself to be
made a defenceless target. 1

When the matter was raised in the Dail on the 1st August the
Minister for Justice (Mr. Ruttledge) said that the matter was a simple
one. The firearms certificates expired annually on the 31st July, and
it was considered desirable to have a stocktaking. Mr. MacDermot
said that the episode was almost too fantastic to be true and that the
talk about stocktaking would not deceive a baby. He and other
speakers pointed out that the Government was apparently not in-
terested in taking stock of the arms illegitimately held. The debate
proceeded on the assumption that the reason given was the real
reason until the hour of the adjournment approached, when little
time was left for further discussion. Mr. De Valera then denounced
the National Guard. The Constitution was not good enough for
General O’Duffy, who was aiming at a dictatorship, and the Govern-
ment would not tolerate private armies on either side. Pressed by
Mr. Dillon to state his attitude towards the Irish Republican Army,
Mr. De Valera said there was no need for it, now that the Oath had
been removed. It was simply a question of time until the truth had
penetrated to the minds of the people, young and old. As for the
National Guard, it was ‘not a body which has any roots in the past,
not a body which can be said to have a national objective such as
the I.R.A. can be said to have’. 2

The position, therefore, was as follows. The National Guard was
a new, unarmed organization, but some of its members possessed
revolvers, for which they had obtained permits from the proper
authorities. They wore blue shirts and so could be readily identified
if they infringed the law. Their revolvers were now to be taken from
them. The Irish Republican Army was a heavily armed force, in
illegal possession of large stocks of revolvers, rifles, machine-guns,
ammunition, and explosives. Its members wore no uniform and they
had committed many cowardly murders and outrages innumerable,
usually under cover of darkness. It had been condemned by the
Catholic Church. But it was a body which had roots in the past, and
it could be said to have a national objective. There was now no need
for its existence, but apparently no attempt was to be made to sup-
press it, at any rate until the truth had penetrated to young and old.

No evidence was adduced to prove that General O’Duffy was aim-
1 Irish Times, 31 July 1933. 2 Diil Debates, xlix, 1028-72.

332 BLUE SHIRTS AND IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY

ing at a dictatorship. On the other hand, Mr. De Valera himself was
a virtual dictator. His personal domination over his party and his
Cabinet was a matter of common knowledge. He had reduced the
office of Governor-General to a nonentity, and during the Eucharistic
Congress he had acted as the ceremonial head of the State. In a speech
in the Ddil on the 7th April 1933 he had expressed his impatience of
parliamentary procedure: ‘One of the faults of our parliamentary
institution, as it stands, is that we have to spend a great deal of time
dealing with comparatively trifling things, things that in a time of
emergency would not be considered at all and that we would not
waste our time on. If the Executive Council is really to do good .
work in connection with this it will have to be given more time away
from the parliamentary duties it has to attend to here. It would be a
very good thing for the country to give, say, a six months’ holiday to
get that work done.’ 1 Shortly afterwards, he departed on a Continen-
tal holiday; and, according to Reuter’s correspondent, at Genoa on
the 5th June ‘in a statement to the Press he spoke of his great admira-
tion for Fascism’. 2 Returning to Ireland on the 1 1th June, though he
was only the Prime Minister, he was received with semi-regal honours,
a salute of nineteen guns being fired from the battery at Dunleary as
the mailboat in which he was travelling approached the harbour. 3
Such a salute had been unknown since the days of the Viceroys, and
even they had received it only on ceremonial occasions.

General O’Duffy seemed to possess a quality of popular appeal
second only to that of Mr. De Valera himself, and it is probable that
the latter’s attitude to the National Guard was due, at least in part, to
a decision that he would ‘bear, like the Turk, no brother near the
throne’. Account must also be taken of the depth of feeling which he
showed towards his political opponents at this time. This was empha-
sized in a startling manner on the 6th July 1933, during the debate on
the Government’s proposal to redeem the balance of the Irish Re-
publican Loan, raised in the United States in 1919-21. The repayment
was not due until the Irish Republic had received international
recognition, and the Opposition resisted the proposal on the ground
that many of the bonds had been assigned to Mr. De Valera to assist
in the establishment of a newspaper. Redemption would accordingly,
they said, involve the payment of thousands of pounds of the tax-
payers’ money to the Irish Press. Mr. De Valera alleged that if the ex-
Ministers were in power they would abuse their office by being guilty

1 Ddil Debates, xlvi, 2657.

3 Ibid., 12 June 1933.

2 Irish Times , 6 June 1 933.

ARMED AUXILIARY POLICE 333

of corruption, and he added: ‘I know it is gall and wormwood to
them that they are not here to do it, and that is the whole trouble.
They are not here to do it, and it is the great and supreme pleasure
of my life to know that they will have to' digest that gall and worm-
wood.’ 1

During the Cosgrave regime it had been the Government’s custom
to hold an annual ceremony on Leinster Lawn, in front of the Parlia-
ment House, when wreaths" were laid on the cross which had been
erected there in memory of the dead founders of the State, Arthur
Griffith, Michael Collins, and, later, Kevin O’Higgins. This cere-
mony had been allowed to lapse under Mr. De Valera, and General
O’Duffy now announced that the National Guard would hold a
parade in Merrion Square on Sunday, 13th August, marching past
Leinster Lawn. As recently as the 1st June the Minister for Justice
had stated: ‘I do not mind what manoeuvres any people in this
country go through. I do not care who they are or what they are,
provided that people do not go out publicly with arms or interfere
in arms with people.’ 2 But circumstances alter cases, and he had been
thinking of the Irish Republican Army. At 12.45 a.m. on the 12th
August the Government promulgated an Order bringing Article 2 a
of the Constitution into force, thus virtually putting the country
under martial law. At the same time, and pursuant to this Article, it
issued a proclamation banning the proposed parade of the National
Guard. It also recruited into the Civic Guard (the new Commissioner
of which was Colonel Broy) an armed auxiliary force of untrained
men, who were ex-members of the Irish Republican Army and had
fought against the State in the Civil War. These men were provided
with rifles, machine-guns, and armoured cars. The British auxiliaries
had been nicknamed the Black and Tans, after a famous Tipperary
pack ; the new auxiliaries received the soubriquet of the Broy Harriers,
after the Commissioner and another well-known pack, the Bray
Harriers.

General O’Duffy cancelled the parade, but announced that private
parades in honour of the dead leaders would be held in each district
on the 20th August. At these a message was read from him to the
effect that no good could come to Ireland from the frantic squabbles
of warring parties. Two days later, in a statesmanlike and sincere
speech, Sir John Keane introduced a motion expressive of the opinion
that the recent actions of the Government purporting to be for the
preservation of public peace and order had not been justified. He was
1 Dail Debates , xlviii, 1861. 2 Ibid., xlvii, 21 82.

334 BLUE SHIRTS AND IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY

made the object of a personal attack by one of Mr. De Valera’s
followers, Senator Quirke, who called him the avowed spokesman of
the landlord class and of the banking interests. The Minister for
Justice stated that the National Guard was a heavily armed force,
but he produced no evidence to justify this statement. 1 While the
debate was in progress the Government issued an Order declaring
the National Guard to be an unlawful association under Article 2a
of the Constitution, and at the same time the Military Tribunal was
set up. The personnel of the Tribunal was the same as it had been
under the Cosgrave Administration. 2 '

When Fianna Fail were in opposition no measure had been attacked
with such vehemence as the Constitution Amendment which em-
powered the establishment of the Military Tribunal. Mr. Ruttledge
had described the Tribunal as a ‘Star Chamber’, 3 and Mr. De
Valera had said: ‘Anyone who gets in your path, “Squelch him, by
God, squelch him,” as Carlyle said of Ireland. That is the only
policy apparently that the Executive Council knows how to put into *
operation.’ 4 The Act was made an issue at the general election of
1 932, and it contributed in large measure to the defeat of the Cosgrave
Government. Shortly after that election, a questionnaire was sub-
mitted to Mr. De Valera by the Irish Independent , and the answers
were published in its issue of the 27th February 1932. Among them
was the following:

Q. ‘Will the last Constitution Amendment Act be repealed in
full?’

A . ‘ Yes, the Act will be repealed in full.’

It was not, however, repealed either in full or in part, and it was now
brought into operation eighteen months later in order to deal with
Mr. De Valera’s political opponents.

It will be recalled that, at the end of December 1932, negotiations
had been initiated for the fusion of the Cosgrave party and the
National Centre Party, but that these had been forestalled by Mr.
Dc Valera’s action in dissolving the Dail. Attempts to this end had
since been made by various intermediaries, but without success. The
creation of the National Guard under General O’Duffy now added a
new factor. All three bodies were being oppressed by the Govern-
ment and harried by the Irish Republican Army. Fusion was desir-
able if they were not to be ground between the upper and the nether

l S , c ! !t } te xvii. 1 1 1 7-1220. 2 Irish Times, 23 August 1 933.

3 Dad Debates , xl, 1 17. 4 I bid., xl, 53.

THE UNITED IRELAND PARTY 335

millstones. Moreover, it was thought that Mr. De Valera was con-
templating a fresh general election. This time the negotiations were
successful; and on the 8th September conventions representing the
Cosgrave party (Cumann na nGaedheal) and the National Centre
Party agreed to join forces with General O’Duffy in forming a new
party. The name of the new party was to be United Ireland, and its
leader was to be General O’Duffy, who had no seat in Parliament.
The Vice-Presidents were to be Mr. Cosgrave (who was to act as
parliamentary leader) and Messrs. MacDermot and Dillon. Mr.
Cosgrave has never been a man with personal ambitions, but the
greatest credit is due to him for his self-abnegation in thus subordinat-
ing himself for what he believed to be the good of his country. Time
unfortunately proved this not to be the case. 1 As the National Guard
had been banned, it was reconstituted on strictly constitutional lines
as a wing of the new party, with the title of the Young Ireland Asso-
ciation.

On the 11th November the United Ireland Party issued a detailed
statement of its policy. This included ‘the voluntary reunion of all
Ireland in a single independent State as a member, without any abate-
ment of Irish sovereignty, of the British Commonwealth in free and
equal partnership’ ; an advantageous settlement of the economic war;
the establishment of agricultural and industrial corporations with
statutory powers; and the abolition of the present proportional re-
presentation system of voting. 2

Two cases will illustrate the distinction drawn between different
classes of citizens in the administration of the law at this period. On
the 7th September nine respectable farmers of County Waterford
were arrested and charged with unlawful association to advocate
non-payment of rates and with conspiracy to compel persons to join
the National Centre Party. They were not tried before the ordinary
courts, but lodged in prison and in due course haled before the Mili-
tary Tribunal. On the 10th October the Tribunal found them all not
guilty on all the charges and they were set at liberty, after having
spent a month in gaol. 3

The ‘Boycott Bass’ campaign was now again in full swing. At
1 a.m. on the 12th September a dozen armed men entered a public-
house in County Dublin, known, grimly enough, as ‘The Dead
Man’s’. The proprietress had been warned a fortnight before not to
sell Bass’s ale. The armed men smashed the bottles of Bass and took

1 Irish Times, 9 September 1933. * Ibid., 13 November 1933.

s Ibid., 11 October 1933.

336 BLUE SHIRTS AND IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY

her brother to a lonely spot in the Dublin Mountains. He was there
stripped of his clothes and a pair of drawers forced upon him, on
which were painted the words, ‘Boycott Bass’. In this condition he
was left to make his way back to civilization. Twelve youths were
arrested in connection with this outrage within the next few days.
They were not brought before the Military Tribunal, but before the
ordinary District Court on the 20th September. For want of evidence,
all were released save one, who harangued the court in a political
speech and was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment in default of
entering into recognisances. 1

This man’s photograph appeared in An Phoblacht, which also
gave a ‘Full Boycott League Report’, showing the result of the anti-
Bass campaign all over the country. 2 The previous campaign in
December had been checked by the Army Comrades Association,
but its successor, the Young Ireland Association, now had quite
enough to do to look after itself. The autumn and winder of 1933-4
were marked by a terrible series of outrages against the members of
this organization and of the United Ireland Party, of which it is
possible to mention only a few. In an interview with the Press
Association on the 3rd September Mr. De Valera said: ‘It is up to
the Government to see that opportunities for free speech are given,
but the Government cannot possibly make people or causes popular.’ 3
This balanced declaration was none too reassuring, and it was remi-
niscent of the statement of the Minister for Finance in regard to the
‘ Boycott Bass’ campaign, made in the previous December and already
referred to: protection would be given to the licensed trade, but ‘all
traders must bear in mind the consequences of flouting public
opinion’.

21st September. Armed men fired on a member of the United
Ireland Party in Dingle, County Kerry, with intent to murder him.
He was seriously wounded. 4

23rd September. Determined attempts were made to prevent a
meeting of the same party in the City of Limerick. A number of
people were badly hurt and motor-cars were burnt. 5

30th September. There were similar occurrences in Cork, where the
military were called out. 0

6tli October. General O’Dufly attended a meeting of the United
Ireland Party in Tralee, where the mob was ready for him. He and

1 Irish Times , 13 and 21 September 1933.

- An Phoblacht , 16 and 30 September 1933
3 Irish Press, 4 September 1933. •»

r ‘ Ibid., 25 September 1933.

Irish Times, 23 September 1933.
c Ibid., 2 October 1933.

OUTRAGES AGAINST THE OPPOSITION 337

his companions had to walk down Bridge Street — a very narrow
thoroughfare— where they had no police escort. General O’Duffy re-
ceived several blows and was finally hit on the head with a hammer.
Mr. Lynch, ex-Minister for Fisheries, was kicked. When they got to
the hall there was stone-throwing, and a Mills bomb was flung on
to a skylight, but some wire netting prevented it from falling into the
hall and exploding. 1 According to Mr. MacDermot, the police
entered the hall at the behest of the mob and brought out a delegate
who was accused of carrying arms. He was searched outside and
.found to be unarmed . 2

14th October. Five armed men visited the house of Joseph Hanly,
Cloughjordan, County Tipperary, forcibly took him outside, and
fired shots over his head, ‘with a view to getting him to resign his
position as Treasurer of the local branch of the United Ireland Party’. 3

16th October. While a dance under the auspices of the same party
was being held at Woodford, County Galway, miscreants fired shots
through the doors and windows, wounding five people. 4

21st October. In a paragraph headed ‘Imperialist Hooligans’ An
Phoblacht stated that ‘Messrs. Hugh O’Reilly and O’Leary, promi-
nent A.C.A. supporters in Bandon, are constant visitors to the
police barracks. O’Leary is the Treasurer of the Bandon Branch of
the A.C.A.’ Eight days later (29th October) armed and masked men
visited the home of O’Leary at four o’clock in the morning, arriving
in a motor-car. The door was battered in, O’Leary’s father was felled
with a cudgel, and the unfortunate man himself was taken out, beaten,
and shot in the legs. Three-quarters of an hour later the car arrived
at O’Reilly’s house. His mother and sister, who tried to tear off the
men’s masks, were struck on the head and face with batons. O’Reilly
was taken out, clad only in his trousers, and beaten all over the body.
He crawled back to his house a mass of wounds, and, after hovering
between life and death for two months, died on the 28th December.
At the inquest his father said he was ‘the same as if he had been
taken out of a tub of blood’ and the doctor stated that he had never
seen a more terrible case. 5 The jury returned a verdict of ‘Wilful
Murder’, but the murderers of poor O’Reilly are still at large.

The newspaper files of the period disclose no single instance of any
corresponding outrage by the members of the Young Ireland Associa-
tion (or Blue Shirts), nor of any act of retaliation by them against the

1 Irish Independent, 7 and 9 October 1933. 2 Dail Debates, xlix, 2363.

3 Irish Independent, 16 October 1933. 4 Ibid., 17 October 1933.

0 Ibid., 30 October and 30 December 1933.

338 BLUE SHIRTS AND IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY

Irish Republican Army. They appear to have behaved with admirable
restraint in difficult circumstances. But it was clear that this state of
virtual anarchy could not be allowed to continue; and at last the
Government decided to take stem action. On the morning of the
30th November the police raided the offices of the United Ireland
Party in Dublin, and also the homes of many hundreds of members
of the party throughout the country, including those of General
O’Duffy and of Mr. Ernest Blythe, the former Vice-President. On the
same day, in the Ddil, the Minister for Justice read out a number of
captured documents in justification of the raids. If any arms were
found he did not mention the fact. The most sensational of the docu-
ments read consisted of extracts from a copy of an obviously confi-
dential letter from one of General O’Duffy’s colleagues to a Con-
servative Member of Parliament in England. It expressed the opinion
that the Cosgrave party was finished and spoke in contemptuous,
and possibly libellous, terms of Mr. MacDermot. The only object in
reading it could have been to foment dissensions in the United Ireland
Party. 1

This stern action was followed up by still sterner action on the 8th
December, when the Government issued an Order declaring the
Young Ireland Association to be an unlawful association. No similar
step was taken in respect of the Irish Republican Army. We must
here interrupt the tale of outrage to consider three law cases which
arose out of this Order.

The Young Ireland Association was, of course, a constituent part
of the constitutional Opposition. It had been banned on the ground
that it was meditating a coup d'etat’, but this seems quite incredible,
as it was practically unarmed and enjoyed Mr. Cosgrave’s full confi-
dence. As it was now an unlawful association, the United Ireland
Party dissolved it and formed a new organization, called the League
of Youth. In order that this should not share the fate of its predeces-
sor, they served a writ on the Attorney-General with the object of
obtaining a declaration from the High Court that the League of
Youth was a lawful organization. The Attorney-General moved to
have the proceedings struck out as vexatious and frivolous. The Hon.
Mr. Justice Johnston refused the Attorney-General’s application,
pointing out that the right of free speech was involved and that the
plaintiffs relied on Article 9 of the Constitution, which guarantees
this right. The Government thus sustained a serious legal reverse. 2

1 DM Debates, 1, 710, 71 1, 848-76.

2 Blythe and Others v. Attorney-General, [1934] I.R. 266-81.

LEGAL REVERSES FOR GOVERNMENT 339

On the 17th December General O’Duffy, who was wearing a blue
shirt, attempted to address a meeting at Westport, County Mayo.
Amid scenes of intense excitement, he and two of his followers, simi-
larly attired, were arrested by the police. An application for an abso-
lute order of habeas corpus was at once made to the High Court. The
police evidence was that the General was arrested on suspicion of
being a member of an unlawful association. The Hon. Mr. Justice
O’Byrne stated that he did not accept this as a true explanation. His
conclusion was that General O’Duffy was arrested because he went
to address a meeting attired in a blue shirt, and he was satisfied that
both the arrest and the detention were illegal. He therefore ordered
the immediate release of the prisoners (21st December 1933). This
was another serious reverse for the Government. 1

No sooner was General O’Duffy set at liberty than he was served
with a summons to appear before the Military Tribunal on charges
of (a) belonging to two unlawful associations, viz. the National Guard
and the Young Ireland Association, and (6) sedition and alleged in-
citement to murder Mr. De Valera in a speech at Ballyshannon on
9th December. The Opposition lawyers countered this by apply-
ing to the High Court for an order prohibiting the Military Tribunal
from hearing and determining the charges. A conditional order was
granted, and this was later made absolute, by a majority judgement,
so far as the charges of sedition and incitement to murder were con-
cerned, but the Court held that the minor charges of belonging to
unlawful associations fell properly within the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal and were triable by it. It further decided that the Tribunal
was a court of limited jurisdiction, which was not protected from
prohibition. So far as the Government was concerned, this was the
most serious reverse of all. It was, in fact, a vitally important legal
decision, which safeguarded the individual from the possible tyranny
of the Executive. 2

Meanwhile, Mr. De Valera’s relations with the Irish Republican
Army were growing progressively more strained. Twelve members of
this organization were arrested on charges of riot and unlawful
assembly in connection with the affair in Tralee, when General
O’Duffy had been hit on the head with a hammer and a Mills bomb
had been thrown. On the 1st December they were sentenced by the
Military Tribunal to terms ranging from four to six months, and
they were lodged in gaol at Arbour Hill, Dublin. 3 This caused grave

1 In re O’Duffy, [1934] I.R. 550-70.

2 The State ( Eoin O' Duffy) v. Bennett and Others, [1935] I.R. 70-127.

3 Irish Independent, 2 December 1933.

340 BLUE SHIRTS AND IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY

dissatisfaction, and, on the invitation of the local branch of the
Government party, Mr. De Valera went down on the 17th December
to address the people of Tralee.

Mr. De Valera said, in the course of his speech, that in Arbour Hill
they had a clean prison, as comfortable a one as any in which he had
ever been. On the general situation, he stated that he had a long and
painful list of things that had happened there within the previous few
months. The only names he could honestly give to the items in that
list were outrages and crimes. Houses had been fired into on several
occasions, and it was a miracle that nobody had been killed. Property
had been wilfully destroyed. Organized groups had taken it upon
themselves to decide without any legal or moral right whatever how
much liberty their fellow citizens might enjoy. Were the people going
to surrender their right to decide at the ballot box what policy was
best in the country’s interests and what government should rule? 1

These wholly admirable sentiments were mere echoes, in more
pleading tones, of what the dead leaders, Griffith, Collins, and
O’Higgins, had said when Mr. De Valera was President of a Republic
in arms against a government which was based on the suffrages of
the people. From the close of the Civil War to the end of 1925 he
had maintained his stage title of President of that Republic. He then
split the Republican Party, but still refused to recognize the Irish
Free State. In 1927 he and his new party subscribed the Oath and
entered the Dail as a matter of expediency. In 1929 he said that those
who continued on in the organization which he and his friends had
left could claim exactly the same continuity that he and his friends
had claimed up to 1925 ; and his newspaper, interpreting this speech
in a leading article, stated that the Dail was a faked parliament, a
Dail of usurpers. The Cosgrave Government was a junta, and would
never be, for them, the de jure government. Since Mr. De Valera had
now replaced Mr. Cosgrave as head of the Government, his complete
conversion was a godsend for the country; but the failure of the
Irish Republican Army to appreciate his motives was perhaps only
to be expected. The outrages accordingly continued, and Mr. De
Valera had increasing recourse to the Military Tribunal not only for
the trial of his political opponents but for the arraignment of his
former friends.

In the first week of January alone nine acts of violence were com-
mitted against members of the United Ireland Party in various parts
of the country’. On the 4th of that month an elderly publican of
1 Irish Independent, IS December 1933.

THE DUNDALK BOMB OUTRAGE 341

Dunmanway, County Cork, died as the result of sustaining a frac-
tured skull on Christmas morning. He was a supporter of Mr. Cos-
grave’s and had been knocked down in the street during a tumult in
which the crowd shouted, ‘Up the Republic! Down with the Blue
Shirts!’ 1 One member stated in the Dail that it was well known who
his assailants were, and another mentioned that the names of some
of them had been given to the police. 2 On the 23rd March, nine men
were brought before the District Court (not before the Military
Tribunal) and charged with his murder.Three days later the District
Justice refused informations, on the ground that the evidence would
not justify him in putting the prosecution and the defence to the
expense of returning the men for trial. 3

On the 9th January two men who were collecting for the United
Ireland Party were attacked in Dundalk by a band of brigands, who
kidnapped and robbed them. The following 8th February one of the
two men, named McGrory, identified the robbers before the Military
Tribunal, which sentenced them to imprisonment. At 8 p.m. on the
following Sunday, 11th February, an immensely powerful bomb was
flung into McGrory’s house, which was situated in one of the most
thickly populated streets in Dundalk. The house was completely
demolished, and fifty windows in the street were smashed. Most of
the family were absent at church, but McGrory’s mother, who was
over seventy, and two young boys aged about seven were terribly
injured. Mrs. McGrory died from her injuries on the following 18th
March. 4

In connection with this outrage Mr. Cosgrave made what seems a
very curious statement in the Driil (16th February 1934). On the 15th
September the Military Tribunal had made an order closing for six
months the offices of the Army Comrades Association at 5 Parnell
Square, Dublin. Nobody, therefore, had authority to enter them
during that period. According to Mr. Cosgrave, police officers were
in 5 Parnell Square on the day previous to the Dundalk outrage, and,
with the aid of field-glasses, kept under observation another house
in the square, No. 44. In this house, he said, a meeting was being
held for the purpose of giving instruction in the use of a land-mine
which was to be exploded on the following day. The only explosion
that occurred on the following day was in Dundalk. The Minister for
Justice replied that, as regards the allegation that detectives were

1 Irish Independent, 5 January 1934. 2 Dail Debates, 1, 883.

3 Irish Press, 24 and 27 March 1934.

4 Irish Independent, 12 February and 19 March 1934.

342 BLUE SHIRTS AND IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY •

keeping watch, ‘anything that was done in that way was done by the
police In the exercise of their duties and in view of any information
they might have had’. He further stated that the police were satisfied
that there was no connection between what happened in Dundalk
and anything that took place in Dublin on the previous day. 1

Not being content with this reply, Mr. Cosgrave tabled a motion
for a judicial inquiry, but this was not discussed until more than a /
year later (3rd April 1935). The Minister then repeated what he had
said as to the lack of connection between the two events, and the
motion was defeated on a party vote. 2

Mr. Cosgrave’s allegations were extraordinary enough, but they
were overshadowed by what emerged later. On the 10th July 1935
five men were charged before the Military Tribunal with the murder
of Mrs. McGrory. The principal witness for the State was a man
named Matthew McCrystal, of Dundalk. On the 23rd March 1934
McCrystal had himself been charged before the Tribunal, and had
been sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, in default of recog-
nizances, for refusing to give information in regard to his movements
on the day of the outrage. 3 According to the evidence which he now
gave, he was present when the infernal machine was being prepared
in Dundalk, and he accompanied the accused men to the vicinity of
the McGrorys’ house on that night, where he remained while the
bomb was thrown into it. Under cross-examination, he said that he
had been a member of the Irish Republican Army and that he had
himself put a few cartridges into the mine, and he admitted that he
was an accomplice. In November 1934, having served his term of im-
prisonment, he joined the Civic Guard, which he left on the following
29th May. Counsel for the State mentioned that he was first suspended
and then dismissed for refusing to answer questions put to him under
Article 2a of the Constitution. The witness stated that he was then
living in the Civic Guard depot. 4

The trial ended on the 18th July. The Military Tribunal stated that
they were ‘ not satisfied that guilt has been sufficiently brought home
to the accused’ and they were acquitted. 5

The day of the Dundalk bomb outrage was also a day of terror in
Drogheda. Members of the League of Youth were assailed by a
furious mob with stones and bottles, to cries of ‘Up De Valera! Up
the Republic! Go on the murderers!’ The Blue Shirts did not break

1 DM Debates, 1, 1708, 1709, 1825. = Ibid., Iv, 1860-84.

r ![/•*!' M arc h 1934. 4 Irish Independent, 1 1 July 1935.

5 Ibid., 19 July 1935.

THE WEARING OF UNIFORM BILL 343

their ranks or retaliate, and the mob had to be dispersed by the mili-
tary, who used tear-gas bombs and fired shots over the heads of the
people. When some of the rioters were subsequently brought before
the District Justice, he said :

‘If the Blue Shirts who came off the train had not used such self-
control there might have been murder done thatevening, as theymight
have attacked the hostile crowd and nobody could say where it would

all end Any body was entitled to use the public thoroughfare as

long as they did not carry arms in their hands and were not an illegal
organization, and no one was entitled to molest them.’ 1

Mr. De Valera was thus faced, by the middle of February, with
very serious difficulties. His toleration of the Irish Republican Army
had brought into being a disciplined but unarmed organization,
which was part of the constitutional Opposition and which wore the
uniform of a blue shirt. The Republicans, and many of his own sup-
porters, were continuously offering mob violence to this organization
and his own efforts to suppress it had been thwarted by decisions of
the High Court. On the 23rd February the Government introduced in
the Dail the Wearing of Uniform (Restriction) Bill. This extraordinary
measure prohibited the wearing of uniform or badges, or the use of
military titles, in support of a political party or its ancillary associa-
tions. The carrying of weapons (including sticks) at political meetings
was made illegal. Heavy penalties were prescribed and an ingenious
(but entirely unconstitutional) attempt was made to avoid further
trouble with the judges by a provision that all offenders were to be
tried before the District Court, from whose decisions there was to be
no appeal, not even to the High Court.

The general purport of Mr. De Valera’s speech on the Second
Reading was that the Bill was essential if civil war was to be avoided.
Mr. MacDermot interrupted him to point out that the Blue Shirts
were not arming, but all he was able to reply was that arms were
available if they wanted them, to which Mr. Dillon retorted, ‘Arrest
every man who has arms and we will support you.’ 3 Obviously allud-
ing to the High Court actions, he said that the Cosgrave party ‘were

using the machinery of the law to defeat and prevent ’, but the

rest of this remarkable sentence was lost in Opposition laughter.
Later, however, he returned to this topic, and alleged that they were
‘using the courts to hamper the Executive’. 3 Much of what he said
was irrelevant to the debate ; he declared his belief in democracy and

1 Irish Independent, 12 and 24 February 1934.

2 DM Debates, 1, 2523. 3 'Ibid., 1, 2524, 2525.

344 BLUE SHIRTS AND IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY

his abhorrence of communism, gave particulars of his parentage, and
denied that there was a single drop of Jewish blood in his veins. 1 He
had often wondered ‘whether this country would not be better off if
the whole lot of us, on the benches on both sides, were taken out and
put into some foreign island, and made to live together’. 2

The Bill was passed by the Dail under the guillotine, after a stormy
and destructive debate, on the 14th March 1933, when it was sent to
the Senate.

1 Dai! Debates , 1, 2514.

2 Ibid., 1, 2503.

CHAPTER XX

TENSION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND

SENATE

The Agricultural Produce ( Cereals ) Bill — Points of constitutional
interest — A spate of legislation — Difficulty of revision — Cordial rela-
tions with Ministers — The Damage to Property { Compensation ) Bill —
Senator O' Farrell's sardonic comment — Resistance to pay-cut of Civic
Guards — Bills rejected — The Local Government ( Dublin ) Bill — The
Local Government {Extension of Franchise ) Bill — Object of these
measures — Their ultimate enactment — Proposed reduction of the
Senate's suspensory power to three months — Mr. De Valera on the
Second Chamber — His real intentions — The Senate's attitude to the
Bill — Senator Douglas's able speech — Request for a Joint Committee
— The request ignored — The Bill sent up again — Its rejection — Failure
to enact it — Mr. De Valera's reliance on the Draft Constitutions of
1922 — His error exposed by Senator Douglas — The wireless account —
Elections to casual vacancies — Duly authorized visitors to the Senate
refused admission by order of the Minister for Defence — His explana-
tion — Reference to Committee of Privileges — The Committee reports
a breach of privilege — The Report approved by the Senate — Amend-
ment of the Defence Forces Bill — The Senate's action misunderstood —
Attack by the Minister for Defence — An embittered atmosphere — The
Wearing of Uniform {Restriction) Bill before the Senate — Arguments
of the Minister for Justice — Attitude of independent Senators — The
constitutional aspect — Mr. De Valera's passionate speech — Admitted
impossibility of a general election — The Senate rejects the Bill — Subse-
quent failure to take steps for its enactment — Mr. De Valera intro-
duces a Bill to abolish the Senate.

Immediately after the reassembly of Parliament after the general
election two Bills which had already been before the Senate were

345

346 TENSION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND SENATE

sent to it again under Article 38a of the Constitution. The first,
which was the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill, has already been
referred to in the previous chapter. The second was the Agricultural
Produce (Cereals) Bill, and the manner in which it was dealt with
raises points of some constitutional interest.

Under Article 38a a Bill received from the Dail which the Senate
had failed to pass might be sent to it again, if the D&il so resolved, at
the end of a suspensory period. This period was normally eighteen
months, but if a general election intervened it terminated on the date
of reassembly. When a Bill had been sent to the Senate a second time,
that House had sixty days in which to pass it, with or without amend-
ment. After the sixty days, the Dail could pass an enactment resolu-
tion, deeming the Bill to have been passed by both Houses and ac-
cepting such of the Senate amendments, if any, as it saw fit. When
Article 38a was inserted in the Constitution in 1928 it was recognized
that cases might arise in which it could not be fairly applied ; and so
the Article further provided that nothing in the machinery prescribed
should operate to restrict the right of the Dail to send such a Bill to
the Senate otherwise than under the Article ; that is to say, to allow
the Senate a normal time to consider and, if necessary, to amend it.
Also, the sixty-day period might be extended by agreement between
the two Houses.

The Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill was eminently such a case.
It was a complicated measure which demanded careful study, and it
was not contentious in the political sense. It was received from the
DAil on the 8th December 1932, and a week later it was given a
Second Reading without a division, after an informed and construc-
tive debate which had occupied three days. In order to facilitate the
Government, the Senate agreed to shorten the Christmas recess by
meeting on the 11th January for the Committee Stage, although the
other House had adjourned till the 1st February. Then came the sur-
prise dissolution of the 2nd January, and on the 1st March the Bill
was again sent to the Senate under Article 38a, without any extension
of the sixty-day period, which was thus due to expire on the 29th
April.

The Senate gave due consideration to the Bill and returned it to the
Dail on the 29th March. It had inserted forty-four amendments, of
which fifteen emanated from individual Senators and the remaining
twenty-nine were Government amendments — mostly to remedy de-
fects which had been discovered in the Bill after it had been passed
by the Dail. Instead of considering the amendments at once, the Dail

SENATORS AND MINISTERS 347

made an order setting them down for the 26th April, the fifty-seventh
day of the sixty-day period. Even then they were not taken, the
Minister for Agriculture stating that they would be considered on the
3rd May. This was contrary to the Constitution, as it was incumbent
on the Dail to deal with the amendments before the sixty-day period
had expired. The mistake was rectified later the same evening and the
amendments were finally taken at 7.30 p.m. on the 27th April, the
fifty-eighth day. Obviously, it was then much too late for proper
consideration to be given to the revision done by the Senate. The
twenty-nine Government amendments were agreed to. and all the
others were rejected. A message was sent requesting the Senate’s con-
currence, and this reached the Senate on the fifty-ninth day. The
sixtieth day was a Saturday. The Senate’s power to touch the Bill had
therefore expired before it could consider the message. Four days
later (3rd May) the enactment resolution was passed by the D&il,
precisely as if the Bill were being placed on the Statute Book over the
head of a dissenting Senate. After a short interval of six months an
amending Bill had to be introduced.

The Senate sat right through the summer of 1933, and, from the
legislative point of view, this year was the busiest ever experienced
by the House. Immense trouble was taken with Government Bills,
and, to give only one example, no fewer than fifty-nine amendments
were inserted in the Road Traffic Bill, all of which were agreed to by
the Dail. The work of revision was of more than ordinary difficulty,
partly because of the Government’s legislative inexperience and partly
because its industrial and (to some extent) its agricultural policy were
of necessity a process of trial and error. The number of Senators who
participated in this work was growing smaller, and the members of
the Government party took virtually no part in it at all, except for-
mally to move amendments at the request of Ministers. Itwas becom-
ing increasingly obvious that Senators of the type elected by the
Fianna Fail Party were either unsuitable for the work of revision or
unwilling to undertake it. The relations between Senators and those
Ministers who visited the House frequently, such as Dr. Ryan and
Mr. Lemass, were growing increasingly cordial, and members were
often thanked for their co-operation and for the improvements which
they effected in the measures submitted to them. The spirit of cour-
tesy and mutual accommodation made itself felt in the debates, and,
so far as these Ministers were concerned, the legislative machine
worked just as smoothly in the Senate as it had done in the days of
Mr. Cosgrave.

34S TENSION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND SENATE

There was a minimum of obstruction, and, as in 1932, Bills were
passed without amendment which hardly commended themselves to
the majority. A typical example was the Damage to Property (Com-
pensation) Bill, which compensated persons who had fought against
the State in the Civil War and whose property had been damaged, the
estimated cost to the taxpayer being £350,000. There was perhaps
something to be said for this proposal if it really closed the account,
but another point of view was possible, and it was expressed sar-
donically by Senator O’Farrell :

‘I hope this is really the last of the Bills we shall have regarding the
payment of compensation and pensions arising out of the Civil War
and the preceding war. We have had practically in every case to pay
pensions and compensation to everyone engaged on either side. Now
we have to pay for the damage done by both sides. Undoubtedly the
principle we have adopted is a rather assuring one for those who may
desire a scrap in the future. We have committed ourselves to the prin-
ciple of paying everybody who engages in any fight in this country.
No matter whether he wins or loses he is bound to win in the long
run, so far as finances and pensions are concerned.’ 1

In the case of Bills which were amended, the Senate for the most
part did not insist on amendments with which the D&il did not agree.
In fact, the only amendment over which the Senate took a stand was
one exempting the Civic Guard from the salary reductions imposed
by the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Bill. The amount in-
volved was £35,000, and, unfortunately for the Government, the
message conveying the Dail’s disagreement came before the Senate
in the month of August, shortly after ex-members of the Irish Re-
publican Army had been recruited into the Civic Guard and provided
with arms. The debate centred on this new development, and Senator
O’Rourke said : ‘ I voted for the cut in the pay of the Civic Guards as
well as the cuts in the pay of the other services. Since then the
Government have felt it necessary to spend £80,000 or £100,000 on
the Broy Harriers. If they can afford to spend £80,000 or £100,000
on the Broy Harriers, the £30,000 which they are going to save by
the cut in the pay of the Guards is very little, and I cannot see my
way now to support that cut.’ 2 The Senate insisted on the amend-
ment, despite a warning from the Minister for Finance that the result
would be the suspension of the Bill and the loss of all the proposed
economics, totalling more than a quarter of a million sterling. Later,
however, he changed his mind and recommended the DSil to agree
1 Senate Debates, xvii, 639. a Ibid., xvii, 858.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILLS 349

to the amendment. 1 Had he not done so, the Labour Party would
have revolted, and the Government would have been faced with
almost certain defeat.

It is unfortunate, but inevitable, that the immensely valuable work
of revision performed by an efficient Second Chamber attracts little
attention, whereas its occasional clashes with the Government and
the other House provoke wide public controversy. We are now about
to consider the three Bills rejected or suspended by the Senate before
the introduction of the Bill for its own abolition. The first two are,
in a sense, complementary to each other and may be considered to-
gether. Both are concerned with the sphere of local government.

Early in 1924, under the Cosgrave Administration, the Dublin
Corporation had been dissolved by Sealed Order of the Minister for
Local Government, and from the 20th May 1924 to the 13th October
1930 the municipality was governed efficiently and well by three paid
commissioners. It was never intended that this system should be
permanent, and by the comprehensive Local Government (Dublin)
Act, passed in 1930, the administrative area of the city was greatly
extended and its government was placed under a city council in con-
junction with a city manager, to whom were accorded wide powers.
The council was to consist of thirty-five members, of whom thirty
were to be elected by the ratepayers on the ordinary local government
register and the remaining five were to be elected on a special fran-
chise of property owners.

Under the British regime the County Councils and other local
bodies, and in particular the Dublin Corporation, had provided a
forum for the discussion of political questions, often to the detriment
of the business for which these bodies had been created. With a native
parliament now existing in the country, the Cosgrave party set its
face against this custom and refused to contest the local elections,
holding that the best men ought to be chosen for purely local work,
irrespective of their political affiliations, if any. Mr. De Valera’s
party, however, took a different view and contested these elections,
with the result that the Cosgrave party was forced to follow suit.

Fianna Fail could hardly hope ever to capture the Dublin City
Council while the five commercial members existed, especially if the
electorate for the remaining thirty members was restricted to those
who paid rates. Neither could they expect much success in the con-
tests for the County Councils and other local bodies if the elections
were left solely to the ratepayers, most of whom were large farmers
1 Dail Debates, xlix, 1952-54.

350 TENSION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND SENATE

serving in the front trenches of the economic war. Accordingly, two
Bills were introduced in the Dail at about the same time, the Local
Government (Dublin) Bill on the 26th April 1933 and the Local
Government (Extension of Franchise) Bill on the following 10th
May. The first purported to abolish the commercial register for the
Dublin City Council, while retaining the total membership of the
Council at thirty-five. The second extended the local government
franchise to all persons over twenty-one years of age, irrespective of
whether they were ratepayers or not. These two Bills were passed
through the Dail by the Government-Labour majority and sent to the
Senate.

The Local Government (Dublin) Bill came before the Senate for
Second Reading on the 14th June. The Minister for Local Govern-
ment (Mr. O’Kelly) described the commercial register as ‘ class legisla-
tion of the worst kind’ and stated that he saw ‘nothing wrong in
politics in local affairs’. The Senate did not agree, and rejected the
Bill by 27 votes to 16. 1

The same Minister was in charge of the Local Government (Exten-
sion of Franchise) Bill when it was discussed on the 12th July. The
proposal was, of course, a revolutionary one, and the arguments for
and against it need not be detailed here. Mr. O’Kelly admitted that
the Government had no mandate for it, but he said that ‘the Govern-
ment of the day always has a mandate for any measure that it thinks
will serve the country’s interest’. The question of politics being raised
again, he exclaimed, ‘Politics means public affairs, and surely to God
a local authority is entitled to discuss public affairs!’ The Senate re-
jected the Bill by 25 votes to 13. 2

The suspensory period of eighteen months expired in the case of
the first Bill on the 6th December 1934, and in the case of the second
Bill on the 27th December. By this time the political complexion of
the Senate had materially altered in favour of the Government, and
on the following 27th February both Bills were again sent up under
Article 38a of the Constitution. Both were finally passed, without
much debate, on the 28th March.

The third Bill which the Senate declined to pass was the Constitu-
tion (Amendment No. 19) Bill, the purpose of which was to curtail
the Senate’s power of delay from eighteen months to three months.
This proposal can have had no connection with the rejection of the
two Local Government Bills, as it was introduced on the 7th June
1933, before cither of them had reached the Senate. It was presu-
1 Senate Debates, xvi, 1770-tS10. = Ibid., xvii, 1 14-90.

SUSPENSORY POWER OF SENATE 351

mably a consequence of the Senate’s refusal to pass the Removal of
Oath Bill without prior negotiation with the British Government.
Mr. De Valera had, of course, no mandate for thus hamstringing the
Second Chamber, but it might have been supposed that it represented
his considered policy regarding the Senate and that he had abandoned
any intention which he might have had of abolishing it altogether.
He made it clear, however, that this was not so, stating in his
Second Reading speech that the Government intended to bring in
proposals ‘to end the present Senate, at any rate’. What had caused
delay was the question whether they should substitute another for it.
The Senate as at present constituted was not worth the money. It did
not perform ‘any function which could not as well be performed by
a Committee’ of the Ddil. He thought it absurd to have a Second
Chamber which was ‘a mere reflex’ of the Dail. If they were com-
pelled to take action quickly, they would have to bring in a Bill for
simple abolition. 1 We have seen that, in the Joint Committee of 1928,
Mr. De Valera had done his best to make the Senate a still more
accurate reflex of the other House by proposing that it should be
elected directly by the Ddil, and that he confessed in 1934 that he
had done so because he ‘wanted to get the people to see clearly that
in practice it was going to result in a Chamber practically of the same
character as here, that it was going to be merely a duplication’. His
purpose having been thus partially effected, he now contemplated
the abolition of the Senate because, according to him, it served ‘no
really useful purpose’.

Mr. MacDermot, on behalf of the Opposition, moved a motion
declining to give the Bill a Second Reading ‘pending disclosure of the
Government’s final proposals regarding the future of the Senate’.
This was defeated by the Government’s mechanical majority and the
Second Reading was passed. Replying to the debate, Mr. De Valera
gave some hint of his real intentions. With nearly five years of power
in front of him, he now said that, in his opinion, the Constitution was
not ‘in anything like the form it will finally be in’. A time might
come, ‘not very far from now, when it would be advisable to have in
a wider way consideration of this so-called fundamental law.’ 2
Though he did not say so, it is obvious that the changes which he
contemplated in the ‘so-called fundamental law’ could not be
effected unless the Senate were first abolished, or at the least had its

came before

1 Ddil Debates, xlviii, 783, 784. 2 Ibid., xlviii, 81 1.

power of delay reduced practically to vanishing point.
The Bill was passed by the Dail on the 28th June a

352 TENSION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND SENATE

the Senate on the 11th July, when Senator Counihan moved that
the Second Reading be postponed pending the setting up of a Joint
Committee of both Houses to consider the constitution and powers
of the Second Chamber. The most important contribution to the
debate was made by Senator Douglas. In a clear and logical speech,
which eschewed rhetoric and was replete with facts, he gave chapter
and verse for the misrepresentations made by Mr. De Valera in re-
gard to the Senate and refuted them by statistics. He showed that the
proposed delay of only three months was farcical, and, also by means
of facts, that the considered opinion of the civilized world was in
favour of bicameral legislatures. At the same time, he welcomed the
proposal to set up a Joint Committee. 1 Other notable speeches
followed on the same side, in particular from the Vice-Chairman
(Senator O’Hanlon) and Senator O’Farrell; and the Minister for
Justice, who deputized for Mr. De Valera, was not in a position to
make a convincing reply. The Second Stage was postponed by 30
votes to 7, and the following resolution was then passed and in-
corporated in a message to the D&il :

‘That it is expedient that a Joint Committee consisting of five
members of the Senate and five members of the D&il, with the Chair-
man of each House ex officio, be set up to consider and report on the
changes, if any, necessary in the constitution and powers of the
Senate.’ 2

The wording of this entirely reasonable proposal was almost the
same as that which had resulted in the Joint Committee of 1928; it
was, however, ignored by the Government. The fact may seem in-
credible to those accustomed to the normal courtesies of procedure
between two Houses of Parliament, but this message was printed on
every Order Paper of the D&il for almost two years. If Mr. De
Valera had allowed it to be debated, and if he really was arixious for
suggestions to make the Senate, in his opinion, ‘worth the money’,
he might have found it difficult to give reasons why the proposal for
a Joint Committee should not be acceded to. The suspensory period
of eighteen months expired on the 27th December. Meantime, the
Bill to abolish the Senate had been passed by the Ddil and rejected
by the Senate.

The 27th December came and went, but Mr. De Valera made no
move, and it was generally assumed that, as the Senate was shortly

1 This speech, and another by Senator Douglas on the Senate Abolition Bill,
were subsequently published as a pamphlet, President De Valera and the Senate
< bason & Sons, Dublin, 1934).

2 Senate Debates , xvii, 3-112.

THE THREE DRAFT CONSTITUTIONS 353

to be abolished in any case, he did not propose to trouble further
about cutting down its power of delay to three months. Then, on the
1 1th April 1935, he proposed a motion in the Dail for the purpose of
sending the Bill a second time to the Senate under Article 38a of the
Constitution, giving as his reason that, even if the Senate remained in
existence for only a short time, the Government desired its power of
delay to be restricted. 1 If that were so, it seems extremely odd that the
Government had held its hand for nearly four months after the sus-
pensory period had expired. But what was to follow was still more
curious. The Bill was again considered by the Senate on the 1st May
1935 ; Mr. De Valera did not attend, and Senator Connolly, who took
charge of the Bill in his absence, described the Senate as, among other
things, ‘a hand-picked, self-elected body’. The Bill was rejected by
21 votes to 20. 2 Under the Constitution, the Senate had now only
sixty days within which to consider the Bill, and this period termi-
nated on the 10th June 1935. Accordingly, at any time on or after
the 11th June the Bill could have been placed on the Statute Book by
the mere passage of an enactment resolution by the Dail. But Mr.
De Valera must have changed his mind again. No such resolution was
proposed, and the Bill never became law.

One further matter falls to be dealt with before we leave the subject
of this Bill. In his Second Reading speech in the Dail Mr. De Valera
referred to the three unpublished Draft Constitutions submitted by
the Constitution Committee in 1922. He said that two of the Drafts
proposed a suspensory period of 180 days for the Second Chamber,
and the third a period of four months. ‘In the Constitution as passed
by the Dail a period of 270 days was allowed but that was in con-
junction with a referendum.’ 3 When replying to the debate, he re-
turned to the matter again. ‘I ask the House to think of that and to
weigh its value, that we had three Committees set up originally as
Committees of experts, that had no immediate political axe to grind,
that were given this task of considering what should be the Constitu-
tion ... of the State here, and that these Committees suggested a
period which is, practically, the period provided for here in this
Bill.’ 4 Its value was duly weighed in the Senate and found to be nil.
Mr. Ruttledge, the Minister for Justice, repeated in substance what
had been said by Mr. De Valera in the Dail, but Senator Douglas
gave the facts. He had been a member of the Constitution Committee
and possessed copies of the three Drafts. In so far as Mr. De Valera

1 Dail Debates, lv, 2424-34. 2 Senate Debates, xix, 1741-82.

3 Dail Debates, xlviii, 781. 4 Ibid., xlviii, 807.

354 TENSION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND SENATE

had implied that the delay of 180 days proposed in the first two
Drafts was not in conjunction with a referendum, his statement was
incorrect. These two Drafts also recommended that the Senate should
be given power, after a Bill had been passed or deemed to have been
passed, to suspend it for a further period of 90 days, during which it
was to be submitted to a referendum. In regard to the third Draft,
Mr. De Valera’s statement was at complete variance with the facts.
The relative provisions (of which the text has already been given in
Chapter III) were quoted by Senator Douglas, and it was obvious
that they would, if adopted, have conferred enormous power on the
Second Chamber. What they amounted to was this : all Bills passed
by the Dail were to be submitted to the Senate for its approval. If
within one month it did not express disapproval, it was to be taken
to have approved. If it amended or rejected a Bill (other than a
Money Bill), the Ddil was given three months within which to agree
with the Senate ; in the absence of agreement, the Ddil would either
have to drop the Bill or else submit it to a referendum. As Senator
Douglas pointed out, this proposal would have placed the Senate in
a dominating position in regard to all legislation except finance. The
Minister for Justice, replying to the debate, admitted that what
Senator Douglas had stated was correct. 1

On the same evening, in the News Bulletin radioed from the
Dublin Broadcasting Station, the proceedings in the Senate were re-
ferred to, and the statement was made that there were three Reports
from the Constitution Committee, two of which recommended six
months’ delay and the remaining one four months. There was no
comment, except to say that the Constitution provided for nine
months and that a period of three months was now proposed.
Senator Douglas’s detailed refutation, and the Minister’s acceptance
of it, were not referred to. On the following day Senator Douglas
raised the matter in the House as a question of privilege. The Broad-
casting Service is a branch of the Department of Posts and Tele-
graphs, and, on the direction of the Chairman, a letter was addressed
to the responsible Minister, in which the facts were recited and a
request made that a correction should be broadcast as early as pos-
sible. The correction, however, was never made, the Minister expres-
sing the view that it ‘would create a precedent which he would like to
avoid, and which might involve the staff of the Broadcasting Station
in future difficulties.’ The correspondence was read to the House and
published in the Debates . 2

1 Senate Debates, xvii, 21, 22, 80.

2 Ibid., xvii, 289-91.

BLUE SHIRTS AND STRANGERS’ GALLERY 355

There were three by-elections during the period January 1933 to
March 1934, caused respectively by the election of Senator O’Doherty
(Fianna FAil) to be a member of the Dail in 1933 and by the deaths
of Senators the Countess of Desart (Independent Group) and Seamas
Ryan (Fianna Fail). Their places were filled by three ex-members of
the Ddil— Messrs. E. J. Duggan, Ernest Blythe, and R. Keyes. Mr.
Duggan was a signatory of the Treaty of 1921, but had not been a
prominent figure of late years in the Dill. He had sat continuously
till the dissolution of 1933, when he did not offer himself for re-elec-
tion. Mr. Blythe was, of course, the former Vice-President and
Minister for Finance ; he had lost his seat at the 1933 general election.
Mr. Keyes was a Fianna Fail back-bencher who had been defeated at
the same election. Whether the men so elected were eminent or not,
they could hardly fail to import into the Senate something of the
political atmosphere of the other House ; and, if the Senate were to
survive, one could not but view with dismay the growing habit of
electing to the Second Chamber persons who had been recently re-
jected at the polls.

Early in 1934 the Government’s hostility to the League of Youth
involved it in a serious clash with the Senate, and the details of the
account which follows are all taken from the published records of
the House. On the 13th February Senator Miss Browne, who was a
member of that organization, wrote to the Clerk of the Senate inti-
mating that, at the next meeting of the House, she desired to intro-
duce to the Visitors’ Gallery two other members, who would be
wearing the uniform of the blue shirt, and requesting the Chairman’s
approval. Whatever the Chairman’s private opinion of the League of
Youth may have been, there was no good reason for withholding
permission. The courts had decided that the wearing of a blue uniform
shirt was legal, and members of both Houses habitually wore it. The
Chairman accordingly signified his consent, and the requisite admis-
sion tickets were issued for the meeting of the 21st February.

Miss Browne’s request had brought to light the fact that for some
months previously visitors to the Parliament Buildings who were so
attired had been stopped at the entrance gates by the ushers. This
action was taken pursuant to an instruction issued to the Superinten-
dent by the Chairman of the Dail at the request of the Minister for
Defence. The Superintendent is an official roughly equivalent to the
Sergeant-at-Arms at Westminster, except that he is responsible to
both Houses. The Chairman of the Senate was not consulted regard-
• ing the instruction, which was, of course, ultra vires so far as the

356 TENSION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND SENATE

Senate was concerned. No clash had, however, occurred, as no visi-
tors so attired had sought admission to the Senate.

As a matter of courtesy, the Chairman of the Senate wrote to the
Chairman of the Dail to inform him that he had given instructions for
the admission of the visitors. On the day of the Senate meeting the
Superintendent informed the Clerk of the Dail, in the presence of the
Chairman of the Dail, that he felt bound to obey the instructions of
the Chairman of the Senate. The Clerk of the Dail stated that the
military guard would stop the visitors in any case, in pursuance of
orders alleged to have been given to them by the Minister for Defence
as long ago as the previous July. The Superintendent replied that, so
far as he knew, the military had no such orders. The Clerk of the Dail
thereupon requested him to verify this, and, if the orders did not
exist, to acquaint the Minister for Defence of all the facts. The Chair-
man of the Dail concurred. The Superintendent carried out his in-
structions, as a result of which an order was issued by the Minister
for Defence to the military guard that persons wearing blue shirts
were not to be admitted to the Parliament Building. A few hours
later, pursuant to this new order, the military guard refused admis-
sion to Miss Browne’s two duly authorized visitors, and they went
away quietly.

When the Senate met the same afternoon, the matter was raised on
a question of privilege, and the Chairman deferred consideration of it
pending the attendance of the Minister for Defence. The Minister
did not, however, attend, but sent a communication to the Chairman
which was read to the House and which the Committee of Privileges
later decided was misleading. The Chairman ruled that ,prima facie , a
breach of privilege had been committed, and the appropriate motion
for reference to the Committee of Privileges was set down for that day
week (28th February). 1

The Minister for Defence then attended and read to the House a
typed statement, admittedly prepared after he had consulted his files.
In the course of this he said :

‘On 20th July 1933 it came to my knowledge that certain persons
intended to seek admission to Leinster House wearing the uniform
of an organization known at that time as the Army Comrades
Association. I consulted the Ceann Comhairle [Chairman of the
Dail] about the matter, and afterwards, with his consent, gave in-
structions to the military that persons dressed in the uniform of the
organization to which I have referred (other than members of the
1 Senate Debates , xviii, 408, 409, 450-6.

A BREACH OF PRIVILEGE 357

Oireachtas) were to be refused admittance to Leinster House. I ad-
vised the Ceann Comhairle and the Superintendent of the Oireachtas
Staff that I had issued these instructions

‘Without consulting or advising me, he [the Chairman of the
Senate] directed tickets to be issued, knowing they were to be used
by persons wearing uniforms and whom the military guard would
certainly stop at the gates unless I cancelled their previous instruc-
tions.’ 1

The motion for reference to the Committee of Privileges was
passed, and on the 9th May 1934 it produced an extremely impor-
tant Report, to which is appended a verbatim copy of the evidence
given before the Committee by the Minister for Defence, the Superin-
tendent (Colonel Brennan), and Senator Miss Browne. 2 The Report
cites the Minister’s statement quoted above, and comments on it as
follows :

‘The Minister, when he made these statements, must have known
(1) that he did not give instructions to the military in July 1933 that
persons wearing the uniform of the Army Comrades Association
were to be refused admittance to Leinster House ; (2) that he did not
inform the Superintendent of the Oireachtas that he had issued these
instructions ; and (3) that the persons in respect of whom the tickets
were issued by the Cathaoirleach would have been admitted but for
the fact that the Minister himself, on the day on which the visitors
presented themselves for admission, caused orders to be issued to the
military for the first time that persons wearing blue uniform shirts
were not to be admitted.

‘If the House, acting on the statement read by the Minister, had
considered it unnecessary to proceed with the motion for reference to
the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, the actual fact, namely,
that the only order of the kind given to the military guard was the
order given to them about 1 p.m. on the 21st February, might not
have been ascertained.’

The Report summarized the whole facts as disclosed by the
evidence, and found that a breach of privilege had been committed
by the Minister for Defence and by the Clerk of the Dail. While the
Committee was in session the Labour representative (Senator John-
son) had differences with the Chairman on points of procedure and
resigned from the Committee. Before the Report was finally adopted.
Senator Mrs. Wyse Power (Fianna Fail) withdrew; and the only

1 Senate Debates, xviii, 458, 460.

2 Reports of Committees, vol. iv, pp. 385-428.

358 TENSION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND SENATE

other member of the Government Party (Colonel Moore) was absent.
The Report was adopted unanimously by the remaining members of
the Committee present, the sole absentee being Senator Brown, who
was abroad at the time. It was subsequently approved by the Senate,
a Government party amendment to refer it back to the Committee
being defeated, after an unedifying debate, by 24 votes to 12. 1 The
whole episode was the most disagreeable that had ever occurred in
the Senate.

Unhappily, shortly after the breach of privilege had been com-
mitted the Senate became still further embroiled with the Govern-
ment, and in particular with the Minister for Defence. We have seen
that ex-members of the Irish Republican Army, who had fought
against the State, had been recruited into' the police' force. A new
Volunteer Force now began to be formed as a branch of the Army,
and its grey-green uniform was said to be based on that worn by
Roger Casement’s Irish Brigade, recruited in Germany from Irish
prisoners during the Great War. Commissions in this new Force
were given to other ex-members of the Irish Republican Army, and
this action had given rise to considerable debate in the D&il. On the
14th March 1934 the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill
came before the Senate for Second Reading. This was the annual
Army Bill and it was necessary for it to become law by the 31st
March. The existing Act was due to expire on that date, and the Bill
purported to continue it for another year. The discussion centred on
the method of recruitment for the new Volunteer Force, and in parti-
cular on the commissioning of the ex-members of the Irish Republi-
can Army. Senator Blythe tabled amendments to the effect that no
person should be appointed to commissioned rank unless he had had
two years’ training at the Irish Military College or else five years’
service in the Army and one year’s training at the Military College.
The amendments were rightly ruled out of order by the Chairman,
since no amendment may be moved to a Bill which is purely a Con-
tinuance Bill except one to extend or curtail the period for which the
Principal Act is to be continued. The Principal Act was due to expire
on the 31st March and the ruling was given on the 20th March; in
view of the fact that the Chairman’s decision had to be made without
delay, he stated that he did not propose to treat his ruling as a
precedent.

Senator Blythe thereupon moved an amendment limiting the opera-
tion of the Bill to the 31st July 1934 instead of to the 31st March
1 Senate Debates , xviii, 1562-1628.

SENATE AMENDMENT TO ARMY BILL 359

* 1935, which was the date in the Bill as passed by the Dail. The debate
on this amendment reflected the general uneasiness at the possibility
of the creation of a partisan Volunteer Force and the progressive
republicanization of the Forces. It cannot be said that such uneasi-
ness was entirely groundless, and Senator Blythe’s object was to gain
time to consider whether the amendments which had been disallowed
could, by some means, be brought before the House. The amendment
was carried by 27 votes to 18, the Cosgrave party and the Independent
Group combining against the Government and Labour; and the Bill
was returned to the Dail on the 20 th March. 1

It seems extremely doubtful whether the action taken by the
Senate in this instance was dictated by counsels of wisdom. Whatever
might be the Government’s intentions in regard to the Volunteer
Force, Senators could do nothing to influence its policy in the matter.
It is true that all the Senate had done was to extend the duration of
the Defence Forces Act by four months instead of a year, and that
the only inconvenience to which the Government had been put was
the necessity of introducing another short Continuance Bill and of
having it passed into law before the 31st July. But previous experience
had made it not unlikely that the action of the Second Chamber
would be misunderstood. Five days later, at Mullingar, Mr. James
Geoghegan, K.C., the former Minister for Justice (now the Hon. Mr.
Justice Geoghegan, of the Supreme Court) informed his audience
that the Senate ‘had so mutilated the Army Bill as possibly to lead
to a chaotic state of affairs if there was not a strong man at the helm
of the State’. 2

On the 21st March the Bill came before the Dail for the considera-
tion of the Senate’s amendment, and, as the Principal Act was due to
expire at the end of the month, the Minister for Defence was obliged
to recommend its acceptance. In doing so, he made an attack on the
Senate: ‘This action on the part of the Senate is part of the obstruc-
tive tactics which have been used by elements here and in England to
obstruct and sabotage the efforts of this Government to maintain and
defend the rights of the people.’ A fortnight previously, the Minister
had been examined for a prolonged period by the Senate Committee
of Privileges with reference to his Exclusion Order; and Mr. Dillon,
rebuking him for what he termed his ‘scurrilous attack’, alleged that
his ‘splenetic attitude’ was due to this fact. 3

It was in this embittered atmosphere, and on the very day on which

1 Senate Debates, xviii, 678-716. 2 Irish Independent, 26 March 1934.

2 Dail Debates, li, 1337-42.

360 TENSION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND SENATE

these speeches were delivered, that the Wearing of Uniform (Restric-’
tion) Bill came before the Senate on Second Reading. The Minister
for Justice, who opened the debate, made the best of his case. He
referred to laws and decrees in Belgium, Latvia, Switzerland, and the
Saar Territory forbidding the wearing of political uniforms, but such
references were valueless in the absence of accurate information con-
cerning the internal situation in these countries. He quoted police
reports to the effect that the presence of blue shirts at meetings was
‘a source of irritation to the majority of the people*. So far as the
Irish Republican Army was concerned, the Bill would deal with
them or anybody else wearing uniform. The question of the amount
of self-defence that is justifiable was a very dangerous one to leave
in the hands of undisciplined people. The Bill was a measure that any
political party should be willing to accept.

There were thus gaps in the Minister’s brief. No allegation was
made that the League of Youth was an armed organization, and no
single instance was cited of an act of illegality committed by one of
its members. When Mr. Cosgrave had introduced his Bill to set up
the Military Tribunal in 1931, he had justified it by reading out a
long list of outrages and murders. A similar list could have been read
by the Minister for Justice, but it would not have justified his Bill, as
the members of the League of Youth were the victims and not the
perpetrators. The perpetrators, so far as they consisted of members
of the Irish Republican Army, were to be dealt with, provided they
got into uniform.

There can be no doubt that many sober-minded people were none'
too happy about the way in which the Blue Shirt movement seemed
to be developing under General O’Duffy’s leadership ; but they could
not close their eyes to the fact that there existed in the country a
secret, heavily armed force which wore no uniform and which the
Government had apparently no intention of suppressing. Interest in
the Senate centred chiefly in the attitude of the Independents and the
Independent Group, since the United Ireland Party would naturally
vote against a Bill which proposed to outlaw its Youth Movement.
One by one, those who were bound by no party ties gave their opinion
on the Government’s proposals. Senator Bagwell pointed out that
all the time the Fianna Fail Party had been in power they had never
proclaimed the Irish Republican Army, never effectively interfered
with it, and never seriously criticized it. He deduced that this army
was. in effect, an ancillary association to Fianna Fdil and that the
Bill was a thinly disguised attempt to suppress all effective criticism

■ WEARING OF UNIFORM BILL IN SENATE 361

by the party, in opposition. Senator Douglas stated that the Blue
Shirts were unarmed and loyal not only to the State but to the prin-
ciple of democratic government, and challenged anyone to deny
that the Bill was an absolutely unjustifiable interference with liberty.
General Sir William Hickie was of the opinion that the Bill was not
a genuine attempt to suppress all private armies, and so proposed
to vote against it. Senator Sir John Keane described the measure as
unprecedented legislation which would bring a political party under
proscription by Act of Parliament.

In the absence abroad of Senator Brown, the constitutional aspect
was not touched upon ; but if the Bill had ever reached the Statute
Book it would probably have been challenged in the courts and might
have been declared invalid. One reason has already been mentioned
in the preceding chapter. Persons charged with offences under the
Bill were to be tried by District Justices, and the right of appeal was
taken away. But Article 64 of the Constitution invested the High
Court ‘with full original jurisdiction in and power to determine all
matters and questions, whether of law or fact, civil or criminal’.
Again, Article 9 guaranteed ‘the right of free expression of opinion
as well as the right to assemble peaceably and without arms and to
form associations or unions for purposes not opposed to public
morality’. The Bill proposed to take away these rights, and so it
seemingly infringed the Constitution.

The debate proceeded for many hours, and Mr. De Valera, who
had been listening to it, must soon have realized that he had no hope
whatever of carrying his Bill. It was after ten o’clock when he rose to
reply. His voice was vibrant with anger, and he thumped the table to
emphasize his points.

In the course of this excited speech he affirmed that the changes
effected in the constitution of the Blue Shirt movement were ‘changes
by which they might be able to advance more easily under the shelter
of law and order’; and he made the followingremarkable statement:
‘To-morrow if we wanted to do it we would get ten shirts to your
one in the country. There is not the slightest doubt about that. There
will be, if necessary, a special force established to protect the country
and preserve public order, under the control of the popularly elected
Government of the Irish people.’ What exactly he meant by this it is
difficult to say, but, in view of the recruitment of ex-members of the
Irish Republican Army into the Army and the Police, it sounded
significant enough.

Senator Sir John Keane had said that a Bill such as this should not

362 TENSION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND SENATE

be passed into law without an appeal to the people at a general elec-
tion. Mr. De Valera’s reply was : ‘ Go to the country in an atmosphere
like this! I will tell the Senator why not. Because if we did we would
not be able to maintain order at the present time.’ This was perfectly
true, but it was a terrible condemnation of his Administration. His
concluding words were: ‘We put on you definitely the responsibility
for depriving us, the elected representatives of the people, of the
powers which we deem necessary to preserve public order on the one
hand and the public safety on the other.’

The division was then taken, and the Bill was rejected by 30 votes
to 18. The majority was made up of twenty-one members of the
United Ireland Party, five members of the Independent Group, and
four Independents; and the minority of twelve members of the
Government party, four Labour members, and two Independents. 1

The subsequent history of the Bill is interesting — or rather its lack
of history. The suspensory period of eighteen months expired on the
13th September 1935, but the Government made no move to bring
the Bill into operation. On the 19th February 1936, in the Ddil, Mr.
MacDermot asked the Minister for Justice whether he intended to
proceed any further with the Bill. The Minister’s reply was, ‘The
answer is in the affirmative.’ 2 It is difficult to understand why he
should have given this answer, for the Bill was not sent a second time
to the Senate, and it never became law.

The day after the rejection of the Bill (22nd March 1934) Mr. De
Valera introduced in the Dail a Bill to abolish the Senate.

1 Senate Debates , xviii, 749-876.

2 Dail Debates, lx, 781.

CHAPTER XXI

THE BILL TO ABOLISH THE SENATE

Mr. De Valera's object — The Agreement with the Southern Unionists
— Suggestion of a general amendment of the Constitution — Possibility
of a new Constitution — Effect of the Senate Abolition Bill— Absence of
safeguards — The judges and the Auditor-General — Mr. De Valera's
general attitude to Second Chambers — His exploitation of his mandate
— Refusal of a Joint Committee — His case for the Bill — The onus
placed on his opponents — The argument from experience of the existing
Senate — Its alleged subservience to Mr. Cosgrave and opposition to
Mr. De Valera — The argument from political theory — Methods of
constituting Second Chambers impracticable or dangerous — The argu-
ment from history — Bicameralism an historical accident — Attack on
Second Chambers of the United Kingdom, Canada, France — The
United States — The Norwegian system — Examples from history —
Attack on England— The Bill in the Senate — Mr. De Valera's brief
opening — Guarantee of safeguards — The Chairman's speech — Instances
of misrepresentation — The argument from history refuted— France —
The United States — Citation of authoritative opinions — Detailed re-
view of Senate's work of revision — Its exercise of the suspensory power
— Comparison with Senates of Canada and South Africa — Allegation
of partiality refuted by facts — Errors in the text of the Bill — Counsel's
Opinion — Defence of the Independent Group — Peroration — Mr. De
Valera leaves the Senate — Senator Douglas's speech — Mr. De Valera's
use of J. S. Mill examined— The Norwegian system misunderstood—
Omissions in regard to France — Other speeches — Mr. De Valera's reply
to the debate — History jettisoned — His further reliance on J. S. Mill —
His attack on the Chairman — His error in regard to the Draft Constitu-
tions of 1922 — The Senate rejects the Bill.

Viewed in retrospect, Mr. De Valera’s proposal to abolish the
Senate is much easier to discuss than at the time it was made. His per-

363

364 THE BILL TO ABOLISH THE SENATE

sonal ascendancy over his party, both inside and outside the D&il, was
an admitted fact; and it was alleged by his political opponents that
his real object was to establish himself as a dictator behind the facade
of single-chamber parliamentary government. As the world now
knows, he used the single chamber, without any mandate from the
people, successively to abolish the Governor-General, to take the
King out of the Constitution, and finally to repeal the Constitution
altogether, a new Draft being passed by the single chamber and sub-
mitted to the people for acceptance or rejection at a plebiscite held
on the same day as a general election. All Mr. De Valera’s prejudices
against the bicameral system had by that time been overcome, and
the new model provided for a Second House.

If these proposals had presented themselves to his mind as a com-
pleted plan at the time the Senate Abolition Bill was before Parlia-
ment, he did not disclose it to the Dail. But certain statements which
he then made have acquired a new significance in the light of subse-
quent events. It will be recalled that, when Mr. Cosgrave introduced
the Constitution Bill into the Constituent Assembly in 1922 he divided
it into three parts. First, there were the Articles which implemented
the Treaty. The Government made these a matter of confidence ; the
Assembly could reject or amend them, but in such a case it would
have to find a fresh government. Second, there were Ihe Articles in-
serted as a result of agreement with the Southern Unionists. The
Government’s attitude towards these was the same. Third, there were
all the remaining Articles, in regard to which the Constituent
Assembly would have a free hand. The agreement with the Southern
Unionists comprised (1) proportional representation in the elections
for the D6il ; (2) a Second Chamber with specified powers and per-
sonnel; (3) university representation — in the Senate as originally
agreed, but later transferred by consent to the Dail. At the time the
Senate Abolition Bill was going through, two other Bills, which will
be referred to later (Chapter XXIV), were also before Parliament.
One of these proposed to abolish university representation, and the
other recast the electoral areas in such a way as to render propor-
tional representation of little value to minorities.

When these three Bills became law there would not be much left
of the agreement with the Southern Unionists. Referring to the other
two classes of Articles, Mr. De Valera now said : ‘This Constitution
was framed originally under exceptional circumstances. There were
certain Articles in the Constitution which were forced upon the
people of this country. There arc certain Articles which represent

MR. DE VALERA ON THE CONSTITUTION 365

democratic ideals. Those that represent these ideals, in so far as a
thorough examination by people who have had experience of ad-
ministration goes, are consistent with practical government. These
Articles ought, with all possible speed, be examined, and be made as
lasting as it is possible for anything to be made lasting, in a constitu-
tional way, without the danger of a cast-iron Constitution which, as
I said, is always a temptation to revolution.’ (17th May 1934.) 1

He returned to this subject a few days later: ‘If we agree in this
House that a selected number of Articles guaranteeing fundamental
rights are to be preserved, if we decide, for their preservation, that
they cannot, for example, be changed by the D&il except by a speci-
fied majority or on approval by the people by way of Referendum, I
believe that an alteration of the Constitution embodying that will be
effective

‘To meet the views of those who fear that either this Dail or a
subsequent Dail might ignore these fundamental rights in the Con-
stitution, I propose at a later stage, when this examination shall have
been completed, to indicate certain Articles and bring them in in a
special measure with safeguards by which they cannot be changed
by a simple majority. It will be for the Dail to decide whether or not
that course is wise and necessary. Personally, I should like to see that
done, and the Government will have no objection whatever to having
it done. Probably in the general interests of the country it would be a
wise course.

‘I would resist strongly the other Articles of the Constitution being
made difficult to change, and I would resist it for the same reason
that I would resist any attempt to make the present position,
which we regard as a forced position, permanent.’ (25th May
1934.) 2

This proposal, which was definite, was never carried out, but the
possibility of a totally new Constitution was vaguely adumbrated:
‘From a legal point of view, in so far as I can presume to understand
the matter, I do not know where a Constituent Assembly derives its
authority from except directly from the people. If, for instance, we
wanted in a short period to get this Constitution revised and a new
Constitution secured, the natural way of doing it would be to get an
Assembly for that purpose elected directly by the people. It is clear
that the Parliament of the time would arrange for the type of
Assembly and how it was to be elected.’ (17th May 1934.) 3 This is,
of course, a perfectly correct statement of the position from the point

1 Dail Debates , lii, 1249. 2 Ibid., lii, 1877-8. 3 Ibid., Hi, 1219.

366 THE BILL TO ABOLISH THE SENATE !

of view of constitutional law. But when the time was ripe Mr. De !
Valera did not adopt ‘ the natural way’.

It is in the light of these statements, made at the time, that we.;
begin our examination of the Bill to abolish the Senate. First, it is
essential to see what precisely the Bill proposed to do. It did not set
up a unicameral system in the sense in which that term is usually ,
understood, that is to say, with the safeguards against legislative
tyranny which ordinarily surround such a system. It merely deleted
the references to the Senate, with the result that a Constitution de-
signed for two Houses was to have one only. This perfunctory, rule-
of-thumb method is explicable by the haste in which the measure was
drafted. Mr. De Valera left the Senate at 11 p.m. on the 21st March,
obviously determined to abolish the Second Chamber, following its
rejection of his Blue Shirt Bill. The Senate Abolition Bill was intro-
duced in the D&il next day, but it did not appear on the printed Order
Paper, and it evidently was not ready at the usual time for the intro-
duction of Bills, which is immediately after Questions, shortly after
three o’clock. It was not, in fact, brought in by Mr. De Valera until
three hours later. This precipitancy had some strange results, not the
least of which was that Mr. De Valera did not entirely succeed in
removing all references to the Senate from the Constitution.

On several occasions while the Bill was before the Ddil Mr.' De
Valera indicated that safeguards of a kind would be provided. He did
not anticipate that the Senate would vote for its own demise, and the
proper time to consider these was while the eighteen months’ sus-
pensory period was running. The Ddil Standing Orders could be
amended so as to allow of a further careful revision of Bills after the .
Report Stage and before the Final Reading. 1 If these proposals had
been carried out, a check would have been imposed on hasty legisla-
tion and time would have been allowed for public opinion to express
itself. No action of the kind, however, was taken, and the only safe-
guards provided were inserted by the Government in the Bill itself,
under pressure from the Opposition. These affected the Comptroller
and Auditor-General and the members of the Judiciary who, under
the Constitution, could be removed from offfee only by resolutions
passed by both Houses, for stated misbehaviour or incapacity. After
the disappearance of the Senate, any of them could be dismissed by
a resolution passed by a bare majority of the Ddil. Two amendments
provided that this majority would have to be four-sevenths of the total
membership of the D&il, exclusive of the Chairman. Mr. De Valera
1 DM Debates , li, 2285, 2320, 2340; lii, 1812.

MANDATE FOR ABOLITION EXAMINED 367

did not accept these two amendments with a good grace. He said they
destroyed the symmetry of the Bill and made it unsightly. 1 Before
they were passed he expressed the view that ‘the best safeguard for .
the Judiciary is for it to establish itself soundly in the good repute of
the people. There is no other way’. 2

Virtually the whole burden of piloting the Bill through the Ddil
was borne on Mr. De Valera’s own shoulders. He told the House
that he had given much thought to the question over a long period,
and that nothing he had heard or read had changed his opinion.

‘I read books on Second Chambers and their history and their
value as a part of governmental machinery, and during all that time
I did not hear a single good argument which would convince me that,
if we were starting here a new Constitution, a Second Chamber was
either necessary or fundamentally useful.

‘However, I have more than once said here in the House that I
believe I am a Conservative, and I thought that — as there were quite
a number of Second Chambers in existence in various States — what
was and what was working had something to recommend it. I kept
an open mind during all these years, ready to hear from any source
any suggestion as to how a Second Chamber that would be really
useful might be constructed, and in all these years, with open ears and
ready to receive any suggestion in an attitude favourable to the accep-
tance of such a suggestion, I have never been able to get, in anything
I read or listened to, a suggestion that would satisfy me that it was
worth while spending money on a Second Chamber.’ 3

We can now see that this was the only attitude which it was possible
for Mr. De Valera to adopt if he was determined to have a period of
single-chamber government for the purpose of introducing a new
Constitution. He had two difficulties to surmount. The first was in
connection with his mandate, based on the following pre-election
declaration: ‘We propose to abolish the Senate as at present consti-
tuted and, if it be decided to retain a Second Legislative Chamber, it
is our intention to reduce considerably the number of its members.’

This declaration is, at best, somewhat obscure. If the intention was
to set up a unicameral legislature, why should the proposal to abolish
the Senate be qualified by the phrase, ‘as at present constituted’?
Further, who was to make the decision for or against retention of a
Second Chamber? On the Second Reading, Mr, De Valera said that it
was ‘quite plain ’, but his paraphrase of it reminded one of Byron’s line :

7 wish he would explain his explmiation .

1 Dai! Debates, Hi, 1866, 1867. 2 Ibid., li, 2138. 3 Ibid., Ii, 2109.

368 THE BILL TO ABOLISH THE SENATE

He said : ‘It indicated that the present Chamber as at present consti- .
tuted would, undoubtedly, go. It indicated further that if there was
to be a Second Chamber — and it left that question clearly one to be
determined, to be determined by this House, to be determined by the
Legislature and by the ordinary methods of determining it — it would
certainly be reduced in its numbers.’ 1 Here again we have the phrase
‘ as at present constituted and the Dail is spoken of as the legislature.
Mr. Dc Valera’s further reference to the matter on the Committee
stage did not clear up the obscurity. ‘The principle of this Bill is to
have a one Chamber Legislature, to get rid of the Senate as at present
constituted. The intention at the present stage anyhow is to have a
one Chamber Legislature.’ 2 The words ‘as at present constituted’
make nonsense of the first sentence, but such passages as this served
to create a doubt as to Mr. De Valera’s ultimate intentions.

This brings us to his second difficulty. He had repeatedly expressed
his willingness to consider with an open mind any workable scheme
for a Second Chamber. For nearly a year the Senate’s request for a
Joint Committee on the subject had been appearing on the D£il
Order Paper. A better method could hardly have been devised. The
most experienced men in both Houses could have been nominated to
the committee, which could have been empowered ‘to send for
persons, papers and records’, that is, to receive evidence from ex-
perts. The committee’s labours would have been unhurried, their
findings would have commanded respect, and their report would
have provided a basis for peaceful constitutional change. But from
Mr. De Valera’s point of view the proposal had the fatal defect 'that
there would have been no interval of single-chamber government.
When questioned by Mr. MacDermot on the point, he said that his
experience taught him that such a Joint Committee would consider
the question ‘from a narrow political standpoint’. Such a committee
was not the right committee, as there ought to be other people on it.
If there was a question of determining finally the Constitution of the
country, he would strongly advocate the setting up of a commission.
Another member inquired ‘Why not now?’ and Mr. De Valera re-
torted, ‘You have got a good long year, I expect, in which all these
things can be considered.’ 3 He was alluding to the period for which
the Bill would be in suspension after its anticipated rejection by the
Senate ; but, needless to say, nothing was done. If such a commission
had been set up shortly after the Senate had rejected the Bill on the
1st June 1934, its report would presumably have been available long
1 Dail Debates, li, 21 10. = Ibid., li, 2319. a ibid., li, 2140.

ONUS PLACED ON THE OPPOSITION 369

before the Senate was abolished on the 29th May 1936. It would then
have been difficult to explain why a period of single-chamber govern-
ment was necessary. Once the Senate had disappeared, no time was
wasted. Eleven days later Mr. De Valera set up his Commission,
which was obliged to work in extreme haste ; its report was requested
by the following 1st October, in view of the imminence of the new
Constitution.

We now come to consider the case made by Mr. De Valera for his
Bill. It is characteristic that, though his proposals affected the whole
structure of the legislature, he felt under no necessity to justify them
in the first instance. It was not for him to prove that he was right, but
for his opponents to prove that he was wrong. In his opening speech
he said : ‘It is on the shoulders of those who stand for having a Second
House in the Legislature must rest the responsibility for proving
that such a House is necessary.’ 1 And later, on the concluding Stage :
‘When I introduced the Bill I said — and I repeat it — that the onus
was on the Opposition to show why there should be a Second
Chamber. Why should we complicate legislative machinery unneces-
sarily? ... I said that it is for those who want to maintain such a
check to show their reasons for it. I think that was fair. To me, it
was just as if I were to have to defend the removing of hobble skirts.
It is for those who say that hobble skirts, which restrict natural
movement, should be worn to show why they should be worn — in
other words, to show why these restrictions and this unnecessary
complication in the legislative machinery should be there.’ 2 However
unreasonable this attitude may seem, it had certain tactical advan-
tages. It placed the Opposition on the defensive, and it enabled Mr.
De Valera to make his case at the end of the debate instead of at the
beginning. His opening speech on the Second Stage fills only four
columns of the Debates', his closing speech fills thirty-two columns,
spread over two days. The Final Stage was begun by the Minister
for Industry and Commerce in a speech of eight words : ‘I move that
the Bill do now pass.’ It was closed by Mr. De Valera in a speech
which, inclusive of a few interruptions, fills thirty-six columns.

Mr. De Valera’s case for his Bill may be considered under three
main heads :

1. The argument from experience of the existing Senate.

2. The argument from political theory.

3. The argument from history.

„ i Ddil Debates, li, 1 830. = Ibid., lii, 1 S09.

370 THE BILL TO ABOLISH THE SENATE

These arguments were not marshalled in orderly fashion, but they
are deducible from his several speeches made during the various
Stases of the Bill in the Dail. We shall now consider them in the
order mentioned.

With regard to the first argument, his points were :

(I.) The Senate, ‘as at present constituted’, was ‘an absolute
menace’ to the country. 1 It was ‘ a real danger’, and if the idea should
get abroad that the will of the people, as expressed through their
elected representatives, was to be thwarted by it the result would be
to foster a revolutionary spirit. 2

(II.) In rejecting the Blue Shirt Bill, the Senate had ‘acted in the
most partisan manner’. This was in strong contrast with the speed
with which it had passed the Military Tribunal Bill in order to assist
the Cosgrave Administration. By this time, Republicans were being
brought in increasing numbers before the Military Tribunal, without
which Mr. De Valera would not have been able to govern the country
for a month. He met this point : ‘We are asked, are we not using it?
Yes, we are; and one of the reasons we are using it is because we
know that, if we passed through this Dail a measure that would
enable us to preserve order and went to the Second Chamber, we
know that in order to defeat us, and try to cripple this Administra-
tion, they would vote against us.’ 3

(III.) The Bill was introduced at that particular time because Mr. De
Valera ‘saw that a political game was being played in the Senate, a
game which was detrimental to the interests of the country. That is
the immediate and the proximate reason for bringing it in as regards
time but not as regards the ultimate intention. It was due to come
along in any case.’ 4 And again : * It had, in fact, been under considera-
tion. It was kept, if you like, more or less in cold storage. It did not
matter a great deal what particular time it was brought in. The Bill
would get into law sometime. There was no hurry then, and no hurry
up to the present, and we thought it was a suitable time to bring it in.’ 5

If the Bill had been under consideration, it is strange that it should
bear so many marks of haste; and, if it was in cold storage, it is
equally strange that it was not taken out of the refrigerator in time
for the opening of the Dail on the 22nd March, instead of being
introduced three hours later.

(IV.) The Senate had twice rejected the Bill to abolish the Oath in
spite of the declared will of the people. ‘They wanted to insist that

’ D S b ai e Ji lj » 1461 . 2 Ibid., li, 1 831 . 3 Ibid., li, 21 1 7, 21 18.

4 IM- 11,2132. 3 Ibid., li, 2431.

STRICTURES ON THE SENATE 371

they were the sovereign authority by telling us, “No, you will not
get this Bill unless you go and negotiate with Britain.” Of course we
were able to put the Bill through in spite of them, but that attitude
did not show any disposition on the part of the Senate to have any
regard for the wishes of the people whose interests and will they are
supposed to safeguard.’ 1

(V.) The Senate had rejected the Bill to extend the local govern-
ment franchise to all persons over twenty-one years of age, irrespec-
tive of whether they were ratepayers or not. ‘We wanted to get these
younger people — those people to whom the people on the opposite
benches are appealing — to take an interest in local and national
affairs. We wanted them to have an immediate and practical interest
in local as well as national affairs. The Senate stopped that Bill from
becoming law.’ When Mr. MacDermot pointed out that the Govern-
ment had no mandate for the Bill, Mr. De Valera replied that ‘no
Government can possibly get mandates for everything it is called
upon to do during its period of office’. 2

(VI.) When Mr. Cosgrave was in power, the Senate was the com-
plaisant tool of the Administration. ‘There is not a single instance,
when our predecessors were in office, and even when there was very
good reason for believing that the legislation proposed was not in
accordance with the wishes of the people, of a sustained attempt made
by the Senate to stop that legislation. There is not a single instance
in which the Senate did not ultimately — which meant, in that case,
in a very short time — give way to the wishes of the majority party in
this House.’ 3 In a speech delivered in the Senate only nine months
before these words were spoken Senator Douglas had given instances
of the refusal by the Senate to pass Bills received from the Dail when
Mr. Cosgrave was in office.

(VII.) The Senate’s attitude to the new Administration was in com-
plete contrast to its attitude to the old: ‘We have the Senate acting,
as is obvious to every person in the country, in a narrow political
way. They are acting as a political party and playing a political game.
They are the allies of the Opposition and they are engaged in the
policy which has been expressed by some members on the opposite
side of putting the Government on the rocks.’ 4

(VIII.) The Senate was not a deliberative but a political assembly.
‘I have not been very often in the Senate but my experience is that
there is the same bitterness and the same political animosity shown

i Dail Debates, li, 21 18, 2119. 3 Ibid., li, 2133. 3 Ibid., li, 1829.

4 Ibid., li, 2134.

372 THE BILL TO ABOLISH THE SENATE

there as is shown here, and that you get questions examined in pre-
cisely the same way as they would be examined here.’ 1 It is unlikely
that Mr. De Valera’s colleagues in the Executive Council would have
confirmed this opinion. His personal experience of the Second
Chamber had been extremely limited. He had attended only six
times in 1932, four times in 1933, and only once in 1934 up to the
time these words were spoken — a total of eleven occasions out of
104 days on which the Senate had sat. Of these eleven occasions, no
less than seven were concerned with matters of high controversy:
six with the Bill to abolish the Oath, and the remaining one with the
Bill to abolish the Blue Shirts.

We now turn to the second of Mr. De Valera’s arguments, the
argument from political theory.

(I.) The composition of a Second Chamber always presents two
destructive alternatives. You will find that ‘it is either of the same
political complexion as the Lower House, in which case it is not an
effective check, or that it is opposed to the majority in the Lower
House, in which case it acts from political motives and, to use a
phrase used in that connection long ago, is mischievous’. 2 Mr. Cos-
grave ascribed the phrase to the notorious Abbe Siey&s, whom he
described as ‘the arch-constitution-monger of the French Revolu-
tion’. 3 Mr. De Valera did not deny the ascription, but said that
Condorcet was of the same opinion. 4

(II.) Nomination was an impracticable method. ‘ If you are to have
a nominated Second House you will have to see how it is to be
nominated. If it is to be nominated by the leaders of political parties
the nominations will be of the complexion of those parties. If you
arc to try to get, by nomination, this venerable Senate, this wise
Senate, that we have in our dreams, then I think we will wait a long
lime before we see our dreams realized.’ 5

(III.) The system of election was positively dangerous. ‘Elect them?
How arc you going to elect them? Are you going to elect them directly
by the people’s vote? Are you going to establish another House so-
that it might be a rival authority — so that there will be a clash of
authority between them? ... I say, if you elect them directly you are
going to have rivalry of authority, or even if you elect them indirectly.-
Thc moment you have them indirectly elected you will be up against
the same difficulties.’ 6

(IV.) There was something to be said for the method of sortition.

1 DM Debates . lii, 1861.
1 Ibid., Ji,2112.

2 Ibid., Ii, 1830.

5 Ibid., lii, 1855.

3 Ibid., li, 1833.
6 Ibid., li, 2115.

INUTILITY OF SECOND CHAMBERS 373

‘The system of lot then comes along I honestly believe that, if

you did want a Second House, the system of lot would be the best
you could get. If you could . . . have certain people who had achieved
certain offices, certain positions, entered on a panel and agreement
as to the type of office that would qualify for admission to the panel,
and if periodically you put the names on the panel into a hat and
picked them out, you would probably get a better Senate than you
would get by any system of nomination.’ 1

(V.) An ideal Senate was not, however, possible. Mr. De Valera
referred to the type who should be in it, 'men of probity and in-
tegrity, of sound judgment’. ‘Get them for us. Show us the machi-
nery by which they can be got, and then we will begin to see that
there is a possibility of having a real Second House which will be of
infinite value. The world has never been able to get that yet.’ 2

(VI.) But the failure to evolve an ideal Second Chamber was not so
regrettable as it might seem. ‘This world is a world of conflicts. So it
seems to me at any rate, and those who are successful are the ener-
getic and the active-minded and not those people who are, in fact,
spent forces. Therefore, if we are looking to the general good of the
nation as a whole, we ask ourselves this question : assuming that we
could get such a Senate as we have in our minds, would it, in fact, be
good for the country as a whole? I say I doubt it. I very much doubt
it.’ 3

(VII.) This conclusion was supported by present-day opinion,
backed by some of the great writers of the past. ‘The more modern
thinkers who are dealing with present-day affairs and conditions are
gradually coming to the conclusion that, when all is said and done,
a Single-Chamber Government is the wisest.’ 1 Mr. De Valera was
curiously reticent on the subject of the names of these ‘more modern
thinkers’, but he claimed Adams, Franklin, and the third Earl Grey
as champions of unicameralism. His dealings with these three authori-
ties are examined in detail in the chapter which follows.

(VIII.) Finally, this whole question of one chamber or two
chambers received far more attention than it deserved. ‘After all
your difficulty you will find that the object you have secured is not
worth the trouble, and you will agree with what John Stuart Mill
said, that all this pother about a Second Chamber is nonsense, and
that if we are to have security in government we have to look for that
security in the education of our people, and to the fact that the people

2 Ibid., Ii, 2114.

4 Ibid., Ji, 2112-

1 DM Debates , lii, 1855.
3 Ibid., lii, 1856, 1857.

374 THE BILL TO ABOLISH THE SENATE

will get for themselves the best class of representatives they can get,
in a primary Assembly like this.’ 1

Mr. De Valera also essayed the historical method, and throughout
his long speeches theory and empiricism are almost inextricably inter-
mixed. This brings us to his third class of argument— the argument
from history.

(I.) His general approach is sufficiently indicated by the following
extracts.

‘Historically, this idea of having a Second House in the Legislature
has been the result, to a very large extent, of accident. It is not at all
essential to the idea of representative government. In fact, it is, I
might say, obnoxious to the idea of truly representative government.’ 2

‘We have got in history the cases in which you had either heredi-
tary chiefs or an invading force that got power by the sword, and
these gradually, owing to the pressure of the people whom they ruled
in their areas, allowed the people a little share of government. They
had it all to themselves at the start and it has been a continual
struggle over the centuries for the people to win just a little bit of
their right to govern themselves from the chiefs and princes who held
the power originally, and, therefore, history tells us that these
Second Chambers have been a remnant, a part of the defensive
armour of— I will use the word without any reference to words that
have been used recently — the ascendancy class. . . . These Second
Chambers, for the most part, arising from historical causes, have
been due to the fact that the people did not get completely into their
own. It was so in Rome, and it has been so in Britain and elsewhere.’ 3

‘There are checks by these Second Chambers in all directions, but
they are always checks in favour of vested interests and privilege, and
they are checks against the march of the people to their rights. They
never work in the opposite direction. They never work when it is a
question of aggression by those who have on those who have not.
They are never used then.’ 4

‘Where Second Chambers exist, they exist either because of some
historical reason or else they are continuing from sheer inertia.’ 5

‘ Having given it [the question of a Second Chamber] careful con-
sideration, I have come to the conclusion that it is all nonsense, all
prejudice, and that the whole thing is due to views current at the
time when there was little experience of modern representative
government and when the whole desire of the people who had influ-

1 D<iil Debates, lit, 1865.

4 Ibid., li. 2117.

= Ibid., Ii, 1830.
5 Ibid., lii, 1863.

3 Ibid., Ii, 21 11, 21 12.

SECOND CHAMBERS CRITICIZED ' 375

ence and power was to corrupt the representatives of the plain people,
to prevent them getting for the plain people the rights that were theirs,
and to obtain for them the chance of getting a decent livelihood as a
result of their labours.’ 1

(II.) Mr. De Valera reviewed the legislative position in different
countries. He dealt with the British House of Lords. ‘Why is it
tolerated to-day? It is, of course, tolerated by a Conservative
Government because it will never oppose them ; its interests are the
same. It broke the Liberal Party in Britain and prevented that Party
from pursuing its ideals such as they were. The Labour Party, when
it comes back to power in Britain, will be faced with the Chamber
that it knows perfectly well is going to block it in its progressive
measures,’ 2

(III.) The Canadian system was also criticized. ‘There is in Canada,
as you know, a nominated Senate. What has been the effect of it? The
Senate there was nominated by the political leader of the day and it
became a political body. ... In Canada the result of this nominated
Senate has been to bring it into disrepute.’ 3

(TV.) Mr. De Valera also attacked the French Senate. ‘Everybody
knows that at that particular time [1875] it was opposed to the senti-
ment of Republican France and that the Republican leader at that
time [Gambetta] simply chose it because at the time he sensed a
Royalist majority and it was used at that particular time simply as a
means of getting the Republic through. It has persisted, but what has
been its history? Its history has been that it has opposed every single
progressive measure that has been brought forth. That is the histoiy
of it.’ 4 And later: ‘What is the history of the French Senate? It is
equally bad. I think the average age of French Senators is about sixty
years. What is their history? Their history is that they have been
uniformly a force acting against ordinary modem social develop-
ment. They opposed old-age pensions, they opposed the abolition of
child labour, they opposed holidays for workers, they opposed the
income-tax law, and, to this day, they have prevented the enfranchise-
ment of women. In other words, they have been uniformly opposed
to the modern conception of democratic freedom and democratic
right.’ 8 As we shall see presently, these animadversions on the French
Senate were made the subject of a serious charge against Mr. De
Valera when his Bill came before the Senate.

(V.) The United States Senate also came under notice, and Mr. De

i Ddil Debates, Hi, 1865. 2 Ibid., li, 2117. 3 Ibid., lii, 1813.

* Ibid., lii, 1810. 8 Ibid., lii, 1 859.

376 THE BILL TO ABOLISH THE SENATE

Valera hazarded the opinion that ‘if, to-morrow, we had the union
of this country, and if there were to remain in the Six Counties a cer-
tain local Parliament and we were constituting here an- all-Ireland
Parliament, a very good case could be made for a Senate on some-
what similar lines’. 1 But he omitted to mention that, at the time he
was speaking, every single one of the forty-eight States of the Union
had bicameral legislatures.

(VI.) The remaining country mentioned by Mr. De Valera was
Norway, which has a quasi-bicameral system. Immediately after each
general election one-quarter of the members returned are selected, in
numbers proportionate to party strength, to form an Upper House.
The system seems to have had its attractions for Mr. De Valera,
possibly because, as was later shown in the Senate, he had imperfectly
understood it. ‘With a small modification, if we want to have a
modification, of the Norwegian system, we can have it here and I
would propose that the moment the Senate, in its present form, would
disappear the Standing Orders of the House would be changed so as
to make provision of that sort.’ 2 No such proposal was, of course,
ever made.

(VII.) Mr. De Valera was at pains to rebut the charge that his
motive in abolishing the Senate was the establishment of a dictator-
ship. The gravamen of the accusation against him was that, in the
circumstances, single-chamber government ensured a party dictator-
ship which meant, in effect, his personal absolutism ; and he had no
difficulty in proving (for it is an obvious historical truth) that the
bicameral system is no barrier to autocracy. His examples from his-
tory, were, however, unfortunate.

‘Take every single dictatorship— although perhaps it is an exag-
geration to speak of a single dictatorship. Take the case of Napoleon.
There was a Senate to stop him. Did it stop him? Not a bit. Victor
Hugo, I think, in one of his writings said of them: “The poltroons!
They were bigger slaves than we wanted them to be.” The same
author, speaking of the experiences of a Roman Emperor, said:
“The wretches! They were bigger slaves than we wanted them to
be.” Take the case of Louis Napoleon. Did the Senate stop him from
his coup d'etat ? Not a bit of it.’ 3

Passages such as this convey better than pages of description the
reason for Mr. De Valera’s hold on the masses as an orator: the
excited, staccato utterance, the appearance of learning, the trium-

1 Dai! Debates, ii, 2128.

a Ibid., lii, 1810, 1811.

2 Ibid., ii, 2143.

CROMWELL ON NEED OF CHECK 377

pbant anger. But the final result is an extraordinary farrago which
will not bear analysis.

{a) Tacitus says that the Emperor Tiberius (who always upheld the
prestige of the Senate) became so disgusted at the subservience of
Senators to his person that he used to mutter to himself on leaving
the Curia, ‘O homines ad servitutem paratos!’ 1 Mr. De Valera mis-
quotes this statement and attributes it to Hugo.

(b) Napoleon said of the French Senate in 1805, ‘The cowards
were afraid of displeasing me!’ Hugo quotes it. Mr. De Valera mis-
quotes it and attributes it to Hugo instead of to Napoleon. Inciden-
tally, this Senate was the creation of the Abb6 Sieyes, upon whom Mr.
De Valera had relied as an authority.

(c) The source of Mr. De Valera’s information was Hugo’s Napo-
leon le Petit, 2 in which Hugo directs his flaming rhetoric against all
who assisted in the establishment of the Second Empire. On the very
next page the Chamber of Deputies is even more bitterly attacked.
Such extracts are scarcely more relevant to conditions in Ireland in
1934 than something said by Tiberius nineteen hundred years ago.

(VIII.) Mr. De Valera also dealt with the case of Oliver Cromwell,
and rebutted the suggestion that he ‘came into existence as a dic-
tator’ as a result of the unicameral system. 3 But the case against the
legislative tyranny of a single chamber can seldom have been stated
so clearly as it was by Cromwell when, at a meeting of his officers, he
urged the acceptance of the ‘Humble Petition and Advice’ as against
the ‘Instrument of Government’. The former prayed for the adoption
of a Constitution which provided for a Second Chamber. The single-
chamber Parliament established under the latter had, among other
barbarities, tortured, whipped, and imprisoned James Naylor the
Quaker.

‘I tell you that, unless you have some such thing as a balance, we
cannot be safe. Either you will encroach upon our civil liberties by
excluding such as are elected to serve in Parliament — next time,
for aught I know, you may exclude four hundred — or they will en-
croach upon our religious liberty. By the proceedings of this Parlia-
ment [i.e. the single chamber] you see they stand in need of a check
or balancing power, for the case of James Naylor might happen to
be your case. By the same law and reason they punished Naylor,
they might punish an Independent or Anabaptist. By their judicial

1 Tacitus, Annals, iii, 65.

2 Victor Hugo, Napoleon le Peril ( 1 852), pp. 44, 45.

3 Dail Debates, lit, 1851.

378 THE BILL TO ABOLISH THE SENATE

power they fall upon life and member, and doth the Instrument enable
me to control it? This Instrument of Government will not do your
work.’ 1

This outspoken statement from Cromwell is not very kind to Mr.
De Valera’s theory that bicameralism is an ‘historical accident’ in
England.

(IX.) Mr. De Valera did make a final effort to show that the idea
of a dictatorship was ridiculous while the Ddil was in existence. ‘We
hear talk of a dictatorship— one-man rule and so on — as if everybody
in this Assembly of 153 individuals had not a voice and as if every-
body here was inanimate and took no part, and played no part, in
upholding the views he believed in, and the views of the people he
represented.’ 2

No more impressive refutation could be placed in juxtaposition to
this than an extract from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, third
President of the United States. He was not one of the ‘hereditary
chiefs and princes’ referred to by Mr. De Valera, but a man who had
fought for a republic and got it. He was urging the need for a bi-
cameral constitution for Virginia, where the existing House consisted
of 173 members.

‘ 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. . . . Little will
it avail us that they are chosen by ourselves. An elective despotism
was not the government we fought for, but one which should not
only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of
government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies
of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without
being effectually checked and restrained by the others. . . . Human
nature is the same on every side of the Atlantic and will be alike
influenced by the same causes. The time to guard against corruption
and tyranny is before they shall have gotten hold of us. It is better
to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth
and talons after he shall have entered.’ 3

Most of Mr. De Valera’s historical examples were given in his
reply to the debate on the Final Stage in the Ddil, when he could not
be answered in that House. A number of able speeches had been
made against the Bill, but Mr. De Valera’s controversial method
placed the speakers under a handicap ; and in any case it was not to
be expected that members of the Ddil would possess a detailed know-

\ C. H. Firth. The Last Years of the Protectorate (1909), vol. i, pp. 137, 138.

- Datl Debates, lii, 1866.

3 Jefferson, ‘Notes on Virginia’ (1782) in his IVritiitgs, vol. iii (1894), pp. 223-5.

MR. DE VALERA ON SOUTH AFRICA 379
ledge of the work done by the Senate. The most dramatic passage of
Mr. De Valera’s concluding speech consisted of an attack on
England. This was, of course, irrelevant to the Bill, but it was in
keeping with such declarations as that of the Minister for Industry
and Commerce that ‘the Granards and the Jamesons and the like
are no longer to be in a position to block the progress of the Irish
Nation’. 1 Mr. De Valera now said that what they were doing was
to undo the consequences of their defeat and win their freedom.
When Mr. MacDermot inquired, ‘Why not do it on the same basis
as South Africa?’ he replied : ‘If South Africa is satisfied that is their
affair. We were an ancient nation before South Africa was thought
of. We are a nation as old as the British. If you want comparisons
why not take the comparison that I gave with Britain? If Britain were
conquered and became a subject State of the German Empire, would
the people in Britain be satisfied?’ 2 And a great deal more to similar
effect. The Bill was finally passed by the Dail on the 25th May 1934
by 54 votes to 38. The same evening it was announced over the wire-
less from the Dublin Broadcasting Station that Mr. De Valera ‘tore
to shreds the arguments of the Opposition \ 3

On the 30th May the Bill came before the Senate. There was
practically a full attendance of members, the public galleries were
crowded, and an air of tense expectancy pervaded the Chamber as
Mr. De Valera rose to open the debate. He followed the plan which
he had adopted in the other House and spoke for only a few minutes,
his remarks filling just two columns of the Official Report. Part of
what he did say, however, is important in the light of after events
and had best be quoted in full. Having stated that he did not antici-
pate that the Senate would pass the Bill, he proceeded :

‘There will be a period in which we can take certain steps that it is
intended to take, to meet a certain position that will arise when the
Senate, as a constituent part of the Legislature, disappears. There
are certain Articles in the Constitution guaranteeing democratic
rights, and it is our intention to have these carefully examined, with
the idea of putting them in a position somewhat like the position now
occupied by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Judges
with regard to their removal. There is the position in which these
Articles cannot be removed by a simple majority but possibly by a
majority that would be specified, by some fraction of the total mem-
bership such as four-sevenths in the case of the Comptroller and

1 Dail Debates, li, 1869. 2 Ibid., lii, 1869.

3 Irish Independent, 28 May 1934.

380 THE BILL TO ABOLISH THE SENATE

Auditor-General, or, perhaps, by a simple majority provided the
view of the majority of the Ddil is supported by the majority of the
people in a referendum.’ 1

This is a firm undertaking that, while the suspensory period was
running and before the Bill became law, action of a definite and
specific character would be taken to safeguard those Articles of the
Constitution which guaranteed democratic rights. That undertaking
was never fulfilled.

Mr. De Valera’s brief opening was followed by a surprise. The
Chairman stood up and addressed the House from the Chair. He
stated that in his conduct of the proceedings he had always main-
tained a rigid impartiality, but on the question of the abolition of the
House of which he was Chairman he was not, and could not be
expected to be, impartial. He had presided over the Senate for nearly
half its existence and he had acquired an intimate knowledge of its
work — knowledge that, in the nature of things, was open only to the
occupant of the Chair. He had also learned much of the history and
practice of other legislatures and had come to realize the supreme
importance of the Second Chamber in our own. In view of his special
knowledge, he could not in conscience remain silent; and so he had
decided, on that unique occasion, to follow a precedent set up by his
predecessor, Lord Glenavy, and to address Senators on the subject
from the floor of the House. Having discharged what he believed to
be his duty, he would resume his impartiality as between all parties
and groups. He accordingly requested the Vice-Chairman to take the
Chair, and he descended from the dais to the floor of the House. 2

There followed a speech which lasted for nearly two hours, in
which Mr. De Valera’s arguments were reviewed by the Chairman
and answered. 3

He began by referring to the persistent misrepresentations of which
the Senate had been the target. In regard to the powers of the Senate
contained in one of the Draft Constitutions of 1922, Mr. De Valera
had stated the exact opposite of the fact. On the day after the dissolu-
tion of January 1933 Mr. De Valera had informed a meeting of Press
representatives that a hostile Senate had constantly attempted ‘to
harass the Government by mutilating its measures or wilfully delay-
ing them’. A week later the Minister for Justice had told an audience

I Debates, xviii, 1217. 2 Ibid., xviii, 1217, 1218.

• Ibid., xviii, 1218-64: reprinted, with references, as a pamphlet entitled Pro
Domo Sua: being the Speech of the Chairman of the Seanad, Senator T. W.

" estropp Bennett, in defence of his House of the Oireachtas against Mr, De Valera
and his Government (Dublin, 1 934).

THE CHAIRMAN DEFENDS THE SENATE 381
in his constituency that every Bill they had passed was being held up,
particularly by the Senate. The truth, as the Chairman pointed out,
was that, apart from the Oath Bill, the Senate had received twenty-
two Bills, of which sixteen were passed unamended. In the six which
were amended, a total of ninety-four amendments was inserted ; of
these, eighty-eight were agreed to by the Dail and the remaining six
were not insisted upon by the Senate. There was no unavoidable
delay over any of the Bills, He quoted other statements, which he
proved were equally false, and concluded :

‘Of what value is a mandate given as a result of such false state-
ments as these? Of course, it has no moral value at all. ... It is
obvious that over a long period the poison gas of calumny has been
of set purpose directed against this House of the Oireachtas by Mr.
De Valera and his followers. There is too much talk about liberty in
this country, and too little attention paid to the things that ensure it.
It is the truth that makes men free, and it is its opposite that binds
them. There can be no liberty without liberty of the mind, and there
can be no liberty of the mind without truth.’

The Chairman next turned to the argument from history. He
quoted Mr. De Valera’s statement to the effect that bicameralism
was largely an historical accident, and recalled that he had challenged
anyone to give him a single example of disaster following the adop-
tion of a single chamber. Numerous instances could be given, but, as
Mr. De Valera had relied on authorities from France and the United
States, the Chairman would confine himself to these two countries.

As regards France, Condorcet and Sieyes had been mentioned.
Condorcet was President of the National Assembly at its bloodiest
epoch, and his works were on the Vatican’s list of prohibited books.
As a constitution-monger, Sieyes was notorious, and he had been
authoritatively described as ‘a byword for contemptible incompe-
tence’. Against the advice of its own Constitution Committee, the
National Assembly of the French Revolution had decided upon a
single chamber by 849 votes to 89. Among those who voted for it
was Mirabeau. It lasted for less than six years, was a colossal failure,
and ended in complete disaster. Mirabeau was converted to the bi-
cameral system, and remarked, ‘Of all tyrannies the most insuppor-
table is that of a single chamber.’

Turning to the United States, the Chairman cited impressive pas-
sages from Alexander Hamilton, in one of which he spoke of the
danger to the people from being ‘misled by the artful misrepresenta-
tions of interested men’. He said that Mr. De Valera might be in-

382 THE BILL TO ABOLISH THE SENATE

tcrcstcd to learn, if he did not know it already, that not one of the
legislatures of the individual States consisted of a single chamber.
The experiment of a single chamber had been tried in three of the
States, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Vermont. ‘In each case it led to
graft, dishonesty, and incompetence. In each case the experiment was
soon abandoned, but not before the Single Chamber had violated a
number of the principal features of the American Constitution.’ But
no doubt Mr. De Valera would say that these were historical acci-
dents, and that the blame lay somewhere else.

Senator Westropp Bennett next proceeded to express his regret
that, though Mr. De Valera had claimed the support of ‘the more
modern thinkers who are dealing with present-day affairs’, he had
neither disclosed their names nor quoted anything they had said. He
himself cited the opinions of such representative men as Sir Henry
Maine, Henry Sidgwick, and Sir John Marriott. He gave a list of the
countries under single-chamber government, and asked, ‘Can any
sane man set this miserable list against the great and prosperous
nations governed under a bicameral system?’ He gave it as his
opinion that single-chamber government would inevitably lead to a
dictatorship of the Left, which meant revolution. ‘If anyone, cleric
or lay, thinks that the seeds of such a situation are not present in this
country he is living in a fool’s paradise.’

The Chairman then turned from theory to practical politics. He
took the decennial period 1923 to 1932 and gave exact figures re-
garding the work of revision done in each calendar year by the
Senates of Canada, South Africa, and the Irish Free State: that is to
say, the number of Bills received from the other House, the number
amended, the number of amendments inserted, and how many were
agreed to. He then summarized the figures, which showed that the
Irish Free State Senate had, in this field, done roughly three times the
amount of work done by the Canadian Senate and more than ten
times that done by the Senate of South Africa ; and he asked what
substitute could possibly be provided which would be capable of per-
forming the function of revision in a comparable manner.

He then considered the power of delay, and gave similar figures
for the same decennial period. The summary showed that no less
than thirty-three Bills had been rejected by the Canadian Senate and
thirteen by the Senate of South Africa. The number in the case of
the Irish Free State was only three.

He examined the case of South Africa in greater detail, and con-
trasted General Hcrtzog's attitude with that of Mr. De Valera. When

REFUTATION OF PARTIALITY 383

the former took office in 1924, he was faced with a Senate in which
there was an Opposition majority. Important measures, such as the
so-called Colour Bar Bill, the Precious Stones Bill, and the Iron and
Steel Industries Bill, were rejected by the Upper House. Grave delay
and inconvenience were thereby caused to the Government. The
Prime Minister had power, under the Constitution, to procure a dis-
solution of the Senate, and the new Senate would undoubtedly have
shown a Nationalist majority. But for six years, from 1924 to 1930,
General Hertzog voluntarily left in existence a Senate in which his
supporters were in a minority, ‘because he is a statesman and a
constitutionalist’.

One of Mr. De Valera’s strongest arguments had been that the
Senate had not proved to be an impartial body of men, and that its
attitude towards his Government had been essentially different from
its attitude towards that of Mr. Cosgrave. The Chairman now re-
futed this argument by giving the facts. As regards the work of re-
vision, he gave the exact figures for the two Administrations (nine
years and two and a quarter years respectively) and showed that the
proportions were similar. As regards the exercise of the power of
delay, two Bills had been suspended in Mr. Cosgrave’s time, and
under Mr. De Valera only four out of a total of 109.

‘Every weapon forged by this Government for the prosecution of
the so-called economic war with Great Britain has been left in their
hands. Bills which effect a violent change in the country’s economy,
incidentally ruining the agricultural classes, a community from which
many of our Senators are drawn, have even been improved here, and
the improvements have been accepted by the Government and the
other House. When the Government demanded haste, these Bills
were passed in haste. Bills which alter the Constitution in such a way
that, if they do not actually break the letter of the Treaty of 1921,
they certainly violate its spirit, have been passed without a division
and almost without debate. Only has the Senate interfered when it
was cither a matter of conscience with them to act as they did or else
because they felt that their interference was necessary- to protect the
people from tyranny or to prevent the Government doing something
cynically wrong to serve purely political ends. When Senators survey
their work during the past two and a half years, they may well, like
Clive, be astonished at their moderation.’

Having contrasted the circumstances of the introduction of Mr.
Cosgrave’s Military Tribunal Bill (which the Senate passed) with
those in the case of Mr. De Valera’s Blue Shirt Bill (which it rejected).

384 THE BILL TO ABOLISH THE SENATE

the Chairman proceeded to give instances in which the Senate had
facilitated the Government and refrained from obstruction. He then
examined the text of the Senate Abolition Bill, and showed that, in
spite of Mr. De Valera’s assurance that more than ordinary care was
taken over Bills to amend the Constitution, this vitally important
measure contained serious errors. He had submitted the Bill to one
of the most eminent constitutional lawyers in the English-speaking
world, who was unconnected with our political controversies, and
he had furnished an Opinion to the effect that the Bill was ultra vires
the Constitution.

The Chairman then entered on the concluding phase of his speech.
He asserted that Mr. De Valera’s real object was a dictatorship, and
undertook a vigorous defence of the Independent Group. ‘An in-
decent and unmanly attempt has been made to prejudice the Senate
in the eyes of the ignorant by introducing the element of religion and
by stigmatizing as Unionists the members of the Independent Group
in this House. . . . The rest of us have learnt to know and respect the
qualities of intellect of these men, their high-mindedness, their inborn
love of liberty, their genuine devotion to Ireland. . . . Unobtrusively
and without advertisement, we have been realizing in our persons and
in our work the ideals preached by Tone, Davis and every man who
had a true conception of Irish nationality. After our twelve years’
experience, I, for one, am not going to stand here and allow my
friends to be calumniated. Speaking as an Irishman, to Irishmen, of
Irishmen, I acclaim these men as my brothers.’ He recalled the fact
that Alice Stopford Green was a member of this group, and quoted
passages'from the message which accompanied her gift of the Casket,
expressive of her ideals for the Senate and for Ireland. He then con-
cluded this memorable speech with a striking quotation from Demos-
thenes: ‘It is impossible, men of Athens, impossible, for one who
commits injustice, breaks oaths and indulges in falsehood to acquire
lasting power. Once in a way, and for a brief season, such a course
of action may succeed, and, fed with hopes, make, it may be, a brave
show of blossom. But time finds it out, and it falls to pieces of itself.
For a house, I take it, or a ship or anything of that sort must have its
main strength in its substructure ; and so too in affairs of state, the
principles and the foundations must be truth and justice.’ 1

Mr. De Valera left the Chamber immediately on the conclusion of
the Chairman’s speech, and he did not return until the third day, in
time to conclude the debate. In his absence, a number of excellent

1 Olynthiacs, ii, 10.

SENATOR DOUGLAS’S SPEECH 3S5

speeches were made, though the debate was. in the nature of things,
one-sided. Probably the most notable, and certainly the most detailed,
was the contribution of Senator Douglas. 1 Four of his points call for
mention here. Mr. De Valera had claimed the support of John Stuart
Mill for the view that ‘all this pother about a Second Chamber is non-
sense’. Senator Douglas quoted the following passage from Mill.

‘A majority in a single assembly, when it has assumed a permanent
character — when composed of the same persons habitually acting
together, and always assured of victory in their own House— easily
becomes despotic and overweening, if released from the necessity of
considering whether its acts will be concurred in by another consti-
tuted authority. The same reason which induced the Romans to have
two consuls makes it desirable there should be two Chambers : that
neither of them may be exposed to the corrupting influence of un-
divided power, even for the space of a single year.’ 2

A second point dealt with the Norwegian system, by which the
Second House is elected from the Primary House. Mr. Dc Valera
had said that they could have that system ‘with a small modification,
if we want to have a modification’. Senator Douclas's comment was :
‘It might be expected that a House so elected would always agree
with the Lower House, but in fact differences do occur. The Presi-
dent said that these differences are settled within three days by bring-
ing the two Houses together as one. I wonder how he calculated the
three days? He omitted to mention that the two Houses in Norway
do not meet together until the Upper House has twice rejected a Bill
from the Lower House and that, when they do meet together, a
two-thirds majority is necessary' to pass the Bill. The President also
failed to tell the Dail that even when a two-thirds majority of the two
Houses sitting together passes an amendment to the Constitution, it
does not become law until after the next General Election, and even
then it must be passed again by a two-thirds majority of the newly-
elected Parliament during the first or second ordinary Session.’ This
fuller information may have put an end to the proposal to adopt the
Norwegian system. At all events, little more was heard of it.

The third and fourth points arc concerned with France. Mr. De
Valera had asserted that the bicameral system was used by Gambctta
in 1875 ‘simply as a means of getting the Republic through’. Senator
Douglas pointed out that ‘he omitted to mention that afterwards
Gambctta became its staunch supporter, and in 1S82 declared that

1 Senate Debates, xviii, 127S-1300.

= J, S. Mill, Considerations on Representative Government (1£61). pp. 97, 9S.

336 THE BILL TO ABOLISH THE SENATE
the principle of two Chambers, “is the guiding principle of all demo-
cratic government.” ’

The last point was more serious. Mr. De Valera had made a
number of charges against the modern French Senate. Senator
Douglas referred to a book published in 1919 by Professor Joseph
Barthelemy, the leading French authority on political science, en-
titled Le Gouvernement de la France, and said: ‘It is a significant fact
that the very charges made against the French Senate by Mr. De
Valera are identical with those adduced by M. Barthelemy, and, more
remarkable still, they are quoted by the President, with one excep-
tion, in exactly the same order as in M. Barthdlemy’s book. As this
can scarcely be mere coincidence, I assume that the book is the
source of Mr. De Valera’s information ; and, if so, I am amazed that
a man in his position and with his responsibility should use the criti-
cisms of M. Barthelemy without at the same time giving his rebuttal
of them.’ Senator Douglas then set forth this rebuttal under five
heads, with deadly effect, ending with M. Barth&emy’s concluding
words on the subject: ‘The existence of a Second Chamber is the
fundamental institution of all organized democracy.’

During the three days’ debate only seven Senators spoke in favour
of the Bill, and none of their speeches calls for special mention. Some
of them were marred by personalities, and that of Senator Johnson
(which was, of course, quite free from this objection) cannot have
been very helpful to the Government, as he stated his opinion that a
Second Chamber was needed and reprobated the tendency ‘to treat ‘
a Party meeting as something very much more influential and authori-
tative than the legislature itself The case against the Bill was wound
up on the third day by the Vice-Chairman (Senator O’Hanlon) in a
speech delivered in the presence of Mr. De Valera, who had returned
to the House in order to exercise his right of reply. In this speech the
Vice-Chairman dealt with Mr. De Valera’s American authorities, and
what he said on this subject is fully discussed in the chapter which
follows.

Mr. Dc Valera, whose opening speech had filled two columns of the
Official Report, then took forty columns to ‘reply’ to a debate the
greater part of which he had not heard. 2 Much of what he said was a
repetition of the assertions which he had made in the Dfiil. ‘It is
reasonable to put the onus for proving that there should be a Second
Chamber, either this existing one or some other, on those who hold
that it is necessary or wise.’ ‘There is not the slightest doubt that the
1 Senate Debates , xviii, 1408. = Ibid., xviii, 1485-1 526.

MR. DE VALERA’S USE OF J. S. MILL 3S7

historical existence of Second Chambers is due larcelv to the fact
that there was a Second Chamber in existence in Great Britain.’ ‘If
there is any lesson to be learned from the French Revolution, it is
not to try by methods of coercion to stand in the way of the legitimate
rights of the people.’ ‘If we have Senators who think that they have
some divine right because they were born with a silver spoon to
govern or rule — they must logically be driven back to base their
rights upon power. But if they do, they will have people to dispute
that.’

As all his historical arguments had been refuted, history was in-
continently jettisoned : ‘I submit that there is nobody here who has
either the time or the opportunity or who. if he were to devote his
whole life to it, could possibly fully examine this question, which
means the whole question of the history of ever}' State in the world
for 1 50 years ; and to draw conclusions simply because in the one case
it failed and in another case it succeeded, without knowing all the
facts, is, to my mind, proving nothing. You do not prove anything.
I have not pretended to prove anything by these references to
history.’ 1

Mr. De Valera chose this occasion (when no answer was possible
in cither House) to elaborate the allusion to John Stuart Mill. What
he did was (without, however, giving his references) to quote the
opening and closing sentences from the chapter on Second Chambers
in Mill’s Considerations on Representative Government. From these it
was made to appear as though Mill regarded the question of one or
two chambers as of secondary importance. But Mill is not a writer
from whom snippets can thus be taken to buttress an argument. In
his view, representative government is the best government for only
a few countries. Even with them, unless minorities can be specially
represented, contraiy to the principle of democracy as understood by
Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Bcntham, and even Burke (who foresaw
and feared the danger of tyranny from democratic majorities), it is a
bad form of government, and may be the worst of all. If a form of
government is truly representative (in Mill's special sense) then he
considered that the question of the unicameral versus the bicameral
system was relatively unimportant. Otherwise, all that he said in
favour of Second Chambers is of full force and effect. But the Dail,
on Mill's canons, is very far from being truly representative. Hence
his cogent reasons (one of which was quoted by Senator Douglas and
is reproduced above) become applicable. Mr. De Valera must have
1 Senate Debates, xviii. I4SS, I4S9.

388 THE BILL TO ABOLISH THE SENATE

been aware of those reasons, because it seems absurd to suppose that
he could read the beginning and end of a chapter without noticing
what was in between. Yet he seems to have been genuinely aggrieved
when the Chairman asked him if he was replying to Senator Douglas,
and retorted angrily, ‘I beg leave to make my speech in my own way.’

This was the prelude to a number of criticisms of the Chairman,
the culmination of which is described next morning by the political
correspondent of one of the newspapers as follows : ‘It was on a point
so trivial as to be almost ludicrous that Mr. De Valera’s rage finally
burst all restraints. The one flaw that he could seize on in the matter
of the Chairman’s speech was a reference taken from himself, which
he claimed had been a misquotation. Whether the President, in a
Press statement with which he inaugurated his campaign at the last
election, had really said that the Senate had “attempted” to hamper
the Government or had been “ tempted” to do so was never decided,
as the President and the Chairman were each able to produce news-
paper reports to support their conflicting claims. But Fianna F&il
Senators clamoured for an apology from the Chairman. It was not
vouchsafed, and Mr. De Valera snapped: “I don’t want an apology
from Senator Bennett. I am very glad that Senator Bennett has re-
vealed his impartiality. It is well for the country to know that they
can measure the impartiality of this Senate by the speech which its
Chairman has delivered.” n

Mr. De Valera then sat down, only to be recalled to his feet imme-
diately by a polite reminder from the Chair that he had not dealt
with his misinterpretation of one of the Drafts presented by the
Constitution Committee. In reply, Mr. De Valera alleged that the
Chairman had accused him of wilful deceit, whereas Senator Douglas
had merely said it was an error. ‘This champion of unpolluted truth,
who lectured us in the last paragraph of his speech about truth and
made the suggestion that we were liars, does not hesitate to accuse
me in that manner; does not hesitate to suggest it and to say that it
was my main argument. It was not my main argument.’

The Chairman had not accused Mr. De Valera of wilful deceit in
this particular matter, but of misrepresentation. The mis-statement,
which was undoubtedly a grave one, was made by Mr. De Valera on
the 20th June 1933. It was repeated by the Minister for Justice on the
following Ilth July. Senator Douglas then made the correction, but
the misstatement, without the correction, was broadcast the same
evening. No explanation had ever been given. Incidentally, in the

1 Irish Times, 2 June 1934.

THE SENATE REJECTS THE BILL 3S9

same speech Senator Douglas quoted three other statements by Mr.
De Valera which he not only said were untrue but proved to be un-
true. He had, on the Senate Abolition Bill, spoken equally strongly
of Mr. De Valera's misuse of Professor Barthelcmy as an authority,
but without reply.

Mr. De Valera at length came to his explanation. * I did. as a matter
of fact, make the mistake of reading ‘'operative” for “inoperative",
and the reason for my mistake was that I did not expect that those
who had signed that report were likely to be more conservative in
regard to the Senate than the others.’ The reason given tends to prove
what had been already suspected, that if what Mr. De Valera reads
conflicts with his preconceived opinions he is very liable to misunder-
stand it.

When this explanation had been given, the division was taken, and
the Bill was rejected by 33 votes to 15. As the occasion was an his-
toric one, it is desirable to give details. The total membership of the
House at the time was fifty-nine, there being one casual vacancy.
Apart from the Chairman (who had only a casting vote), the maxi-
mum number of votes in the division was therefore fifty-eight. Senator
Farren (Labour) was present on that day but did not take part in the
division ; and there were nine absentees.

The majority of thirty-three was made up as follows: United
Ireland Party, 20; Independent Group, S; Independents. 4 (Senators
Sir Edward Bellingham, Sir William Hickic. Sir John Keane, and
Linchan); Fianna Fdil. 1 (Colonel Moore).

The minority of fifteen consisted of: Fianna Fail. 11 ; Labour 3;
Independent, 1 (Senator O’Neill).

The nine absentees were :

United Ireland Party: Senators Dillon. MaeGuinness. Mac-
Loushlin, O’Rourke.

Labour: Senators Duffy and O’Farrell.

Independents: Senators Sir Thomas Esmondc and the Earl of
Granard.

Independent Group : Senator Douglas.

A number of these were, of course, prevented from attending cither
by ill health or by absence from the country.

CHAPTER XXII

MR. DE VALERA’S HISTORICAL AUTHORITIES

Mr. De Valera’s controversial method — Earl Grey’s * exact words ’ —
Source of the quotation — Three variations of the text — Applicable
solely to the Australian colonies — Rendered out of date by 1859 — Dr.
Temperley’s warning — Mr. De Valera’s reference to Adams — The
Vice-Chairman's refutation as regards John Adams — His mention of
Samuel Adams — Mr. De Valera’s belated explanation — The explana-
tion examined — Samuel Adams’s views on bicameralism — Mr. De
Valera on the duties of Members of Parliament — His reliance on
Franklin — The Vice-Chairman’s refutation — Inquiries instituted in
Pennsylvania — The article in State Government — Mr. De Valera’s
final words on Franklin — His use of the information obtained from
Pennsylvania.

It is proposed in this chapter to illustrate Mr. De Valera’s contro-
versial method by recounting, in some detail, his actions in regard to
three authorities which were adduced by him as arguments for the
abolition of the Senate. Though they have lost whatever polemical
importance they may have derived from the immediate occasion,
they are still of interest (on the principle of ex uno disce omnes ) as
showing the somewhat unusual methods which Mr. De Valera adopts
to build up a case and — what is more significant— the lengths to
which he is prepared to go in seeking to maintain his original posi-
tion after it has been proved to be untenable.

On the Second Reading of the Abolition Bill in the D£il Mr. De
Valera followed his usual practice of reserving his arguments for his
concluding speech in reply to the debate, when no answer to them
was possible at that stage. In that speech, delivered on the 19th
April 1934, he spoke as follows: ‘The more modern thinkers who
arc dealing with present-day affairs and conditions are gradually
coming to the conclusion that, when all is said and done, a Single

390

EARL GREY MISQUOTED 391

Chamber Government is the wisest. It is not only the more modern
thinkers who hold that view. Take, for example, the third Earl Grev,
writing in 1853. He was a man who had given considerable thought
to this question. He had been a protagonist in favour of the Second
Chamber, and when he writes in 1 S53 what does he say? I will civc
you his exact words: “I now consider it very doubtful, at least,
whether the Single Chamber Legislature ought not under any cir-
cumstances to be preferred.” ** As Mr. Dc Valera professed to give
Earl Grey's exact words, it would naturally be assumed that he had
taken his quotation from the original. If he merely copied it from
some other writer, who had in turn copied it from Grev. he could
hardly make such a claim. So much being clear, let us see what
Grey’s exact words really arc. and refer them to their context.

Mr. Dc Valera did not give his authority, but the quotation is taken
from page 97 of volume ii of Grey’s Colonial Policy of Lord John
Russell's Administration, which was published in 1853. Here is what
he wrote: ‘I now consider it to be very doubtful, at least, whether
the single Legislature ought not under many circumstances to be
preferred.’ It will be observed that, while professing to give Grey’s
exact words, Mr. Dc Valera managed in one short sentence to pro-
duce no less than three variations of his text. Two of these arc of
minor importance, but the third misquotation is a serious one. Mr.
De Valera makes Grey say. in effect, that he thinks it doubtful
whether single-chamber government is not preferable under any
circumstances. What he said was that there were, in his opinion, many
circumstances in which it is preferable. There is. of course, an enor-
mous difference between these two statements, and the alteration is
wholly in favour of Mr. De Valera’s argument.

But that is not all. If he was quoting direct from the original. Mr.
Dc Valera must have known that the sentence in question had refe-
rence only to the Colonies in 1852. Earl Grey was Secretary of State
for War and the Colonies in Lord John Russell’s Administration.
1846-52. On the defeat of the Government in the latter year he wrote
a series of letters to his late chief in which he vindicated his colonial
policy. These letters were published the following year, with the title
Colonial Policy of Lord John Russell's Administration. They deal with
that subject, and with nothing else.

The letter from which Mr. Dc Valera misquoted dealt with
Australia, and is dated the 1st November 1852. Grey was considering
the Constitution Act for Australia. 1 850. for which he had been rc"
> DM! Debates, li. 2112.211?,-

392 MR. DE VALERA’S AUTHORITIES

ponsible. This Act permitted the Australian colonies, under certain
limitations, to amend their Constitutions, but it provided in the first
instance for a single chamber. Grey gives his personal reasons for
that course— the ‘many circumstances’ which Mr. De Valera turned
into ‘any circumstances’. These reasons are summarized in an able
notice of Grey’s book contributed anonymously to the Edinburgh.
Review for July 1853 (page 90) by Sir Charles Adderley (afterwards
Lord Norton): ‘The elements for an aristocratic chamber do not
exist in a young colonial community: the number of persons fitted
for the duties of representation is not large, and hence their division
into two houses is inexpedient ; while the presence of a body of mem-
bers nominated by the Governor (being a third or some other number
less than half the house) serves to insure a consideration for the
opinions of minorities, and to prevent an eager majority rushing at
once to the attainment of their end, without due deliberation and
discussion.’ Earl Grey then went on to point out that the Constitu-
tion originally given to New South Wales in 1842 and extended by the
Act of 1850 to the neighbouring colonies ‘also makes provision, by
another arrangement, for that revision of laws before they are finally
passed, which it is considered one of the chief objects of the division
of the Legislature into two branches to ensure’. 1 This arrangement,
as he explains, was the power accorded to the governor, before giving
the Assent of the Crown, to return Bills to the Parliament for recon-
sideration, and the power of the Crown in London to delay confirma-
tion of colonial statutes even after they had been assented to by the
governors, until the local legislatures had had an opportunity to re-
consider and amend them.

Obviously, these considerations have no application in the case of
a single chamber elected under universal suffrage, where no power of
delay or annulment exists ; or, rather, such application as they have
is all in favour of a bicameral system. Yet Mr. De Valera cannot
have been unaware of these facts if, as his words suggest, he was
quoting from the original ; for they are given in the same context as
the sentence which he cited.

In his Preface Grey warns the reader that the progress of events in
the times in which he lived was so rapid that a delay of even a few
months had made material changes; so he took the precaution of
dating each letter, and he requested that the dates be borne in mind.
Actually, what he had said about the advantages of single-chamber
government in the colonics was rapidly rendered out of dale by the
1 Uarl Grey, Colonial Policy of Lard John Russell's Administration, vol. n, p. 100.

DR. TEMPERLEY’S WARNING 393

action of the colonies themselves. The Act of 1850 permitted the
Australian colonies, within certain limitations, to amend their Con-
stitutions. They quickly took advantage of this freedom to set up bi-
cameral legislatures : New South Wales, with its offshoots Victoria,
Tasmania, and South Australia, all in 1855; and Queensland in 1859.
So that what Grey had written in November 1852 was rendered com-
pletely out of date as early as 1859. Yet we find Mr. De Valera relying
upon it to support his argument for the abolition of a Senate sitting
in Dublin nearly eighty years later.

The third Earl Grey is not a writer whose views are considered as
of serious account by students of political science, and it is some
evidence of the poverty of his material that Mr. De Valera made use
of him at all. If, in spite of professing to quote Grey's 1 exact words,
Mr. De Valera took them at second-hand from some other source,
then there is only one work from which he could have taken them,
because there is only one work in which Grey’s views on 'Second
Chambers in the Colonies have come under notice. That work is Dr.
Harold Temperley’s Senates and Upper Chambers, published in 1910.
Now it is an odd circumstance that Dr. Temperley quotes (page 43)
the sentence which Mr. De Valera quoted, and that the word ‘many’
is there misprinted as ‘any’. It accordingly seems probable that Mr.
De Valera was not quoting from the original, but merely from Dr.
Temperley. But the change from ‘many’ to ‘any’ was far more
serious in Mr. De Valera’s case than in Dr. Temperley’s, for the
latter made no specific claim to give the exact words, nor did he found
any argument upon them. On the contrary, in an addendum which
Mr. De Valera can hardly have avoided reading (for attention is
directed to it by a marginal note), he expressly warns the reader
against accepting Grey’s statement at its face value: ‘It is, however,
only fair to remember that Earl Grey’s argument as to the Single
Chamber in a Colony was based on considerations which would now
be used to justify the existence of a Single Chamber only in the

different States of a Federal Union In the same way, Earl Grey

and his contemporaries relied on the power of the Imperial Govern-
ment to retard, disallow or veto colonial statutes with a freedom’
which no modern English statesman would advocate’ (pages 297,
298). This was written in 1910, and by 1934 the Imperial Govern-
ment retained no power whatever over statutes passed in the Irish
Free State, the last formal traces of such power having been removed
by Mr. De Valera’s own Government in the previous year, by means'
of an amendment to Article 41 of the Constitution.

394 MR. DE VALERA’S AUTHORITIES

Thus, in Grey’s case, not only were the ‘exact words’ not given, but
their strictly limited application, and the fact that they were long out
of date, were both passed over in silence ; though both facts should
have been obvious to Mr. De Valera, from whichever of the two
sources he took his quotation.

In the same speech as that in which he misquoted Earl Grey, Mr.
De Valera claimed the support of American authorities for the uni-
cameral system, as follows : * It was suggested, by some of the speakers
on the other side that all the theorists and the practical people who
have been engaged in the task of moulding Constitutions have been
in favour of the Two Chamber Parliament. That is not so. America
has reminded me of it. Franklin was no mean political thinker. He
stood for the'Single Chamber. Adams was no mean political thinker.
He stood for the Single Chamber.’ 1 On the Second Reading of the
Abolition Bill in the Senate, the Vice-Chairman of that House
(Senator O’Hanlon) dealt at length with Mr. De Valera’s reliance on
Adams and Franklin. 2 It is necessary that the two cases be taken
separately.

In regard to Adams, Senator O’Hanlon said, quite correctly, that
as John Adams, the second President of the United States, was in-
comparably the most distinguished man of that surname he must be
taken to be the constitution-moulder referred to by Mr. De Valera.
The point is important, in view of what occurred later; but there is
no need to labour it, as it is sufficiently obvious. In the case of no
other Adams could the Christian name be omitted without serious
risk of misunderstanding; and this is especially so when Adams is
mentioned in the same breath with Franklin. In any event, any doubt
that might have existed on this question of identity is dispelled by
Mr. De Valera’s attitude at the time. He was present in the Chamber
when the Vice-Chairman delivered his speech ; the latter developed
his case on the assumption that John Adams was intended, and Mr.
De Valera did not intervene to say that he had not referred to John
Adams but to some other Adams. Nor did he make any reference to
the matter in his speech, which followed immediately on that of the
Vice-Chairman and which concluded the debate.

The Vice-Chairman had, of course, no difficulty in showing that,
so far from Adams having ‘stood for the Single Chamber’, he was
one of the greatest champions of the bicameral system that have ever
lived. He cited passages from his Thoughts on Government and
Defence of the Constitutions of the United States, such as the follow-
1 Dali Debates, li, 2! 12. a Senate Debates, xviii, 1479-83.

JOHN AND SAMUEL ADAMS 395

ing : ‘A Single Assembly possessing all powers of government would
make arbitrary laws for their own interest and adjudge all controver-
sies in their own favour.’ ‘I cannot think a people can be long free
nor ever happy whose government is in one Assembly.’ Senator
O’Hanlon stated, further, that Adams’s ideas on the subject were
reflected in the Constitutions of Massachusetts (of which he was one
of the draftsmen) and of Virginia and in the Federal Constitution of
the United States; and he mentioned that Adams’s exceptionally
strong views on Second Chambers contributed to his defeat by
Washington in the contest for the first Presidency of the United
States.

The Vice-Chairman also made reference to Samuel Adams, who
was associated with John Adams in the drafting of the Constitution
of Massachusetts, and whom he characterized as ‘relatively an un-
important person’. ‘He may have in the early days of the struggle
with Britain made some references in favour of a Single Chamber
administration, when he was leading the Radical Opposition in the
Assembly of Massachusetts against the Conservative majority in the
Council. There is no proof of that whatever, but there is positive
proof that when the Constitution of Massachusetts was being drafted
it was submitted to a Committee of which Samuel Adams was one.
They were referred to as “the brace of Adamses”. The second was
John Adams. The Constitution they drafted embodied a bicameral
system of legislation.’

This was a damaging refutation, the more so because of Mr. De
Valera’s reiterated claim to have given serious study to the question
of Second Chambers. He had been interested in the subject for twenty
years at least. He had given thought to the matter. He had done an
amount of reading and had consulted authorities; and, having given
it careful consideration, he had ‘come to the conclusion that it is all
nonsense’. 1 The ordinary man, however, though he might experience
some degree of chagrin or discomfiture at the time, would have been
content to let the matter rest or, better still, to admit quite frankly
that he had been mistaken. But Mr. De Valera’s psychology is so
unusual that a refutation of this sort assumes the aspect of an in-
justice not to be borne. In view of what subsequently happened,
there can be very little doubt that, after Senator O’Hanlon had
delivered his speech, inquiries were made by Mr. De Valera, or on
his behalf, in order to discover whether Samuel Adams had at any
time been in favour of a single chamber.

1 Dad Debates, lii, 1865, 1866.

396 MR. DE VALERA’S AUTHORITIES

On the 12th December 1935, more than a year and a half after
Senator O’Hanlon’s speech, Mr. J. M. Dillon, the Deputy Leader of
the Opposition, speaking in the Dail, recalled what John Adams had
said and used words about the misuse of his name by Mr. De Valera
that undoubtedly called for a reply from the latter. 1 But Mr. De
Valera did not intervene to say that he had referred to Samuel Adams,
and in his speech winding up the debate he was silent on the point.

On the 15th January 1936, in the Senate, the Adams question was
again raised, this time by Senator Milroy. Mr. De Valera did not
attend, but Senator Milroy challenged any member of the Govern-
ment party to give the source upon which their leader had relied
when making his statement that Adams ‘stood for the Single
Chamber’. There was no reply, and the speaker pointed out that the
case against the Senate had been built up on misrepresentation and
the falsification of evidence. 2

The matter came up again on the 28th May 1936 in the Ddil, on
the motion that the Abolition Bill be deemed to be passed by both
Houses. It was two years, almost to the day, since Senator O’Hanlon
had spoken on the subject, and on this occasion Mr. De Valera
vouchsafed some information. When Mr. Dillon referred to one of
the quotations cited from the works of John Adams by Senator
O’Hanlon, Mr. De Valera interrupted him with the question, ‘Are
you sure I mentioned John Adams?’ to which Mr. Dillon replied,
‘ Oh, I am never sure of anything the President says, because, if there
was a possible method for the President to say anything so that it
could be interpreted in six different ways, he would certainly choose
that way of saying it.’ To which Mr. De Valera answered, ‘There
happened to be a Sam Adams too.’ 3

When Mr. De Valera rose to conclude the debate, the long ex-
planation which he gave was in striking contrast with his previous
silences on the subject. He said : ‘I will admit that, as there are two
famous Adams, it would have been better had I mentioned Sam

Adams at the time 1 will admit that Sam Adams was not quite

so famous as John Adams, but he was Chairman of the Senate of
Massachusetts. He was one of the Committee of Three which was
appointed to draw up a constitution for that State. John Adams, his
cousin, had a very high opinion of him, and he was at least impor-
tant enough to have a “ Life” written of him. In speaking of him, the
author of that “Life” said that “Samuel Adams gave a tone to the

l £■?{ Debates, lix, 2617, 2618. • 2 Senate Debates, xx, 1789, 1790.

3 Dai! Debates, lxii, 1250.

SAMUEL ADAMS ON BICAMERALISM 397
politics of America for many years ”. It is true that in the Committee’s
report there was a recommendation for three branches : a Governor,
a Senate and a Primary House. John Adams, writing of that at the
time in his memoirs, said that his constituents in Boston compelled
him to vote for three branches. John Adams, who was the Chairman,
said that Samuel Adams concurred because of the fact that his con-
stituents wished it. Now, I say that if I mention a man like that as
“no mean political thinker”, those who make a study of it will
naturally think of such a man.’ 1

There is here the clearest possible suggestion, short of a categorical
avowal, that when Mr. De Valera claimed that ‘Adams stood for the
Single Chamber’ he was referring to Samuel Adams. But this cannot
be the case if, as seems a reasonable deduction from his subsequent
conduct, his information about Samuel Adams was sought and ac-
quired after he had heard his name mentioned by Senator O’Hanlon.

Moreover, it will be observed that Mr. De Valera contented him-
self with a paraphrase of what John Adams had written. If he had
given the ‘exact words’ the impression created would have been very
different ; for Samuel Adams’s views on the bicameral system are of
very little account (they are not even mentioned in his biography by
Hosmer) and John Adams refers to his cousin’s opinions on the sub-
ject in terms which are almost contemptuous. Here is the quotation :
‘He very rarely spoke much in Congress, and he was perfectly un-
settled in any plan to be recommended to a State, always inclining to
the most democratical forms, and even to a single sovereign assembly,
until his constituents afterwards in Boston compelled him to vote for
three branches." The year to which the quotation refers is 1775,
when the Continental Congress was iD session at Philadelphia ; and
at that time Samuel Adams’s experience of systems of government
was virtually non-existent. If, instead of producing a paraphrase of
second-hand evidence of Samuel Adams’s views, Mr. De Valera had
consulted that statesman’s own writings, he would have found
nothing to support his assertion that" Adams ‘stood for the Single
Chamber’. But he would have come upon this passage, written by
Samuel Adams on the 25th November 1790, after ten years’ expe-
rience of the working of the Constitutions of Massachusetts and
other States with bicameral legislatures :

‘The American Legislatures are nicely balanced. They consist of
two branches, each having a check upon the determinations of the

1 Dai! Debates, \m, 1333, 1334.

- Collected Works of John Adams, vol. iii, p. IS.

398 MR. DE VALERA’S AUTHORITIES

other; they sit in different Chambers, and probably often reason
differently, in their respective Chambers, on the same question. If
they disagree in their decisions, by a Conference their reasons and
arguments are mutually communicated to each other; candid ex-
planations tend to bring them to agreement; and then ... the matter
is laid before the first Magistrate for his revision. . . . Here is a mix-
ture of three Powers founded in the Nature of Man ; calculated . . .
finally to enable them to decide, not by the impulse of passion, or
party prejudice, but the calm Voice of Reason, which is the Voice of
God.’ 1

Further comment on the Adams episode is unnecessary ; and before
we consider that of Franklin it is desirable to place on record Mr. De
Valera’s own conception of the duties of Members of Parliament in
relation to a controversy of this kind. On the 24th May 1934, speak-
ing on the Final Stage of the Abolition Bill in the Ddil, he said : ‘It is
our duty as representatives not to play the political game, in the
sense of keeping back information and knowledge which ought to be
used here in the Legislative Assembly for the general benefit.’ 2 We
have seen how wide was the gulf between his precept and his practice
in the case of Grey and Adams. In the case of Franklin it was to
prove even wider.

In the speech already referred to, the Vice-Chairman of the Senate
dealt with Mr. De Valera’s statement that Franklin ‘stood for the
Single Chamber’. He pointed out the well-known facts that Frank-
lin’s views on government were doctrinaire and academic, and that
his practical efforts in constitution-making were singularly unsuccess-
ful. He mentioned that the Constitution of Pennsylvania was drafted
by Franklin in 1776 and embodied his two favourite ideas of a uni-
cameral Legislature and a plural Executive ; that the system was ad-
mittedly a failure; and that after an existence of only fourteen years
it was abolished, being replaced in 1790 by a two-chamber system.
Senator O’Hanlon further stated that, at the Convention which drew
up the Federal Constitution for the United States, the motion ‘that
the national legislature ought to consist of two parts’ was carried
without a single dissentient (31st May 1787). The delegates from
Franklin’s own State of Pennsylvania abstained from voting, but
they stated afterwards that they did so merely ‘out of consideration
to Dr. Franklin’.

Presumably as a result of this refutation, a communication was

1 The Writings of Samuel Adams, vol. iv (1908), pp. 345, 346.

2 Ddil Debates, lii, 1815.

FRANKLIN AND PENNSYLVANIA 399

sent by the Government to the Legislative Reference Bureau of
Pennsylvania, in which the question was posed, ‘Why did Pennsyl-
vania abolish the unicameral system?’; and the fact of its dispatch
was disclosed in an article written by Irma A. Watts and published
in the issue for March 1936 of State Government, an American perio-
dical which deals with matters of constitutional interest in the various
State legislatures. The relevant portions of this article are as follows :

*. . . The Government of the Irish Free State recently asked the
Legislative Reference Bureau of Pennsylvania, “Why did Pennsyl-
vania abolish the unicameral system?” This provoked some interest-
ing studies

‘Under the Constitution of 1776, Pennsylvania placed the execu-
tive power of the State in the hands of a President and a Supreme
Executive Council of twelve members. The law-making powers were
vested in a single body known as the General Assembly of Freemen.
To insure that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution would be
preserved, there was created also a Council of Censors, whose duty
it was to inquire whether the Constitution had been preserved in-
violate in every part. This Council of Censors consisted of two per-
sons from each city and county of the State, and was to be elected
every seventh year.

‘After the adoption of the Constitution of 1776 public opinion
soon began to decide that the one-chamber legislature was not con-
ducive to good government in Pennsylvania. Among the first acts of
the Council of Censors was the appointment of a Committee on the
Defects and Alterations of the Constitution. The Committee pre-
sented its report in 1 784

‘The outstanding features of the report were :

‘ “Your Committee, to whom it was referred to report those
articles of the Constitution which are defective and the alterations
and amendments, begs leave to report.

‘ “That by the Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania, the
supreme legislative power is vested in one House of Representatives,
chosen by all those who pay public taxes. Your Committee humbly
conceives the said Constitution to be in this respect materially
defective:

* “ 1. Because if it should happen that a prevailing faction in that
one House was desirous of enacting unjust and tyrannical laws, there
is no check upon their proceedings.

* “2. Because an uncontrolled power of legislation will always
enable the body possessing it to usurp both the judicial and the

400 MR. DE VALERA’S AUTHORITIES

executive authority, in which case no remedy would remain to the
people but by a revolution.”

‘No immediate action resulted from this report of the Council of
Censors, but it should be noted that its conclusion against the uni-
cameral system was arrived at before the precedent of a two-House
legislative body was established by the Federal Constitution.

‘ Four years later, at the thirteenth Session of the General Assembly
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Gerardus Wynkoop, of Bucks County, made a
motion to have incorporated in the minutes an address, “To the
Citizens of Pennsylvania”, which set forth . . the sentiments of the
Assembly on the expediency of calling a convention for the purpose
of altering the Constitution of the Commonwealth.

‘ . To obtain and to secure that great principle of prosperity,

it is indispensably requisite that caution, accuracy, order, modera-
tion, stability and vigour should reign, in making and in executing
the laws.

‘ “Without intending an invidious application to persons or times,
we submit it to your experience and reflection, whether those quali-
ties are to be uniformly found in a legislature consisting of a single
body of men, or whether, on the contrary, precipitation and incon-
sistency do not often characterize the proceedings of a legislature
thus formed, and restrained by no immediate control. Having re-
cently turned your attention to the federal system, you are fully in-
formed on this head. The government of the United States, under the
late articles of confederation, consisted only of a single branch. The
wisest heads and the most virtuous hearts in our nation have agreed
in condemning this inefficient and dangerous arrangement. You have
seen, felt, and to your never-failing honor have, with your com-
patriots of other States, remedied this radical imperfection ”

‘A resolution to call a convention to revise the Constitution was
adopted four days later. That Constitution, adopted in 1790, created
a General Assembly, consisting of a Senate and a House of Repre-
sentatives.’

The following seem to be reasonable assumptions: (1) that the
inquiry from the Irish Free State Government which provided the
occasion for the above article emanated, directly or indirectly, from
Mr. Dc Valera; (2) that a reply was sent to the inquiry; (3) that it
contained, in substance, the information embodied in the article, or
at all events did not contradict it in essential points ; (4) that it was
received by March 1936, the month of publication of the article; and
(5) that it was duly seen by Mr. De Valera, or its terms communicated

MR. DE VALERA ON PENNSYLVANIA 401

to him. If these assumptions are correct, Mr. De Valera had in his
possession, or accessible to him, fresh information emphasizing the
inherent dangers of single-chamber government before the final step
was taken to abolish the Senate.

On the 28th May 1936 Mr. De Valera rose to conclude the debate
in the Dail on the motion required by the Constitution before the
Abolition Bill could be passed into law. He was thus speaking for the
last time on this subject. No speaker had referred during the debate
either to Franklin or to Pennsylvania, and so there was no reason
why Mr. De Valera should have done so either, apart from his
maxim that it was the duty of representatives ‘not to play the political
game, in the sense of keeping back information and knowledge which
ought to be used in the Legislative Assembly for the general benefit’.
In the course of his speech he said :

‘Franklin was a good political thinker. He had a good deal of
experience. He was entrusted at that time with important missions.
He was a man of the world — not a mere theorist — and he was in
favour of a Single Chamber. It is said, of course, that the Legislature
of Pennsylvania did not last very long, but I question whether the
Single Chamber in the State of Pennsylvania was changed because it
was a Single-Chamber Legislature. So far as I have been able to see
it, there were, I think, other defects more fundamental even than
that, and that it was because of these and the fact that the Constitu-
tion of the United States, on account of its federal character, being a
Two-Chamber system, that Pennsylvania, after some fourteen years
or so, adopted the Two-Chamber system.’ 1

Thus Mr. De Valera made no reference to the fact that his Govern-
ment had made inquiry on the subject from Pennsylvania, and, if the
reply to that inquiry was on the general lines of the article, he contra-
dicted it in essential points, without giving any rebutting authority.
He told the Dri.il, in effect, that the single-chamber legislature of
Pennsylvania was abolished, not because it was a single chamber, but
because of other defects and because a two-chamber system had been
adopted for the Federal Constitution. The article makes no mention
of any such other defects and gives no reason for the abolition other
than the dangers inherent in the system. So far from the change
having been made because of the adoption of a bicameral legislature
for the Federation (i.e. on the 31st May 1787), we are told that ‘after
the adoption of the Constitution of 1776 public opinion soon began
to decide that the one-chamber legislature was not conducive to good
1 Ddil Debates, Ixii, 1334, 5.

402 MR. DE VALERA’S AUTHORITIES

government in Pennsylvania’ ; and special attention is drawn by the
writer of the article to the fact that the Committee of the Council of
Censors, whose duty it was to report on defects in the Constitution,
presented its report against the unicameral system in 1784, ‘before
the precedent of a two-house legislative body was established by the
Federal Constitution’.

CHAPTER XXIII

DISSENSIONS ON LEFT AND RIGHT

Schismatic tendency of Irish political parties — Placating the Re-
publicans — The Military Service Pensions Bill— The Volunteer Force
— Other factors weighing against extremism — The Vice-President
threatens physical force against the North — Republican dissensions —
Formation of the Republican Congress Party — Fracas at Wolfe Tone's
grave — Split in the Republican Congress Party — Outrages continue —
Misfortunes of the United Ireland Party — General O' Duffy's position
— The Corporate State — The Blue Shirts get out of hand — Professor
Hogan on General O'Duffy — Resignation of General O'Duffy and
split in the Blue Shirts.

From the political point of view, the salient features of the summer
and autumn of 1934 were the increasing dissensions in the ranks of
the Irish Republican Army, and, at the other end of the scale, the
internal difficulties of the United Ireland Party. The schismatic ten-
dency of Irish political parties was doubtless an underlying cause in
both cases, but there were other more specific reasons.

As regards the militant Republicans, the whole trend of Govern-
ment activity had been in the direction of placating, and if possible
rendering innocuous, those who had fought against the State in the
Civil War of 1922-3. We have seen that some of them were given
important positions in the Volunteer Reserve and that a number of
others were recruited into a Special Armed Branch of the Civic
Guard. Those who were wounded in the Civil War had been given
pensions and those whose property had been damaged had been
compensated. On top of these measures, a Military Service Pensions
Bill was introduced in the Dail on the 1st August 1934, the purpose
of which was to secure that those who fought on the side of the Irish
Republican Army in the Civil War should be pensioned on the same

403

404 DISSENSIONS ON LEFT AND RIGHT

basis as the officers and men of the Regular Army. The cost was
estimated by the Minister for Defence at the enormous sum, of
£360,000 a year. 1 The Senate, so often accused of being reactionary,
passed this Bill with celerity, and ‘improved’ it by inserting amend-
ments which extended the benefits to women. All of the Senate
amendments, nine in number, were agreed to by the Ddil.

It may be objected that such measures did nothing to wean from
militant republicanism those who had been too young to take part
in the Civil War. But for these there existed the Volunteer Force, or
the Militia as it was popularly called. This was a scheme which had a
very great deal to commend it, and it must have drawn off a great
many potential warriors from the Irish Republican Army. Not sur-
prisingly, it was violently attacked by the extremists, and the exhorta-
tions ‘Join I.R.A. Boycott Milisha’ (sic) became common on dead
walls. The new Army Pensions Act was also condemned as a bribe,
and on the 10th September the (Republican) Army Council issued a
statement in which it was characterized as ‘an attempt to buy off the
hostility which exists against the rewarding and subsidising of
treason’. 2

Two other factors must have weighed against militant republica-
nism. The first was the change in the character of the parliamentary
Opposition. In Mr. Cosgrave’s time every step taken to deal with the
menace from this quarter was fiercely assailed by Mr. De Valera and
his followers. Now, the similar steps taken by Mr. De Valera, slow
and halting though they might be, were taken in the knowledge that
he had behind him a united Parliament. Moreover, he possessed, in
the Military Tribunal, a weapon adequate for his purpose, with the
added advantage that his abundant use of it in no way detracted
from the odium incurred by his predecessor for having forged it.

The second factor was the altered character of the struggle. The
previous Administration had stood upon the Treaty and the Con-
stitution, and the issue was Irish Free State versus Republic. Its suc-
cessor stood upon neither, and by this time the area comprised in
the Irish Free State was as nearly a republic as makes no matter. As
time went on, it was to be even more closely assimilated to that ideal.
There was therefore not much left for the militant Republicans to
fight about, except a republic for the whole of Ireland. Even here
the Government competed with them. Mr. De Valera has stated
upon occasion that the unity of Ireland can be achieved only by
peaceful means, but the Administration spoke with two voices on
1 Dai! Debates, liii, 2198. 2 An Phoblacht, 15 September 1934.

REPUBLICAN DIFFERENCES 405

this vital matter. Speaking in Dublin on the 26th March 1934, the
Vice-President (Mr. O’Kelly) said: ‘We will use every effort to re-
establish a Republic for the thirty-two counties of Ireland. That is
our aim, and if the gun is necessary the people have the Government
to direct the Army and they have the Volunteer Force behind them
again.’ 1 If this was to be taken as the Government’s aim, many young
men might feel that they would satisfy their martial ardour, as well
as their patriotic ambitions, in a more practical way by joining the
Volunteer Force rather than the Irish Republican Army — and with
less discomfort to themselves.

For these reasons or others, fissures began to appear early in 1934
in the ranks of the militant Republicans. The majority adhered to the
Irish Republican Army, with the policy and methods of which we
are familiar. They were led by Mr. Maurice Twomey, its Chief of
Staff, and Mr. Sean MacBride, and they retained control of the
weekly newspaper, An Phoblaclit. The minority, headed by Mr.
Michael Price and Mr. Peadar O’Donnell, formed the Republican
Congress Party, its policy being the establishment of a workers’ re-
public through political action and by the penetration of the trades
unions. At the annual pilgrimage to Bodenstown on Sunday, the
17th June, there was a clash between these two sides and something
like a fracas occurred at poor Wolfe Tone’s unquiet grave, the mem-
bers of the Republican Congress Party being deprived of their
banners. 2

A few months later, the Republican Congress Party appears to
have split again, this time, so far as can be gathered, on the question
whether the ultimate aim was to be the setting up of a workers’
republic or the establishment of a united front against imperialism.
At a meeting of Congress held in Dublin on the 1st October, Messrs.
Peadar O’Donnell, Frank Ryan, and George Gilmore were elected
to the National Executive, but Mr. Michael Price, supported by the
minority, refused to go forward, stating that until Congress stood for
a workers’ republic and the overthrow of capitalism he could not act
on the executive and had but one place to turn to— the Citizen
Army. 3

It is impossible for a complete outsider to know how far, if at all,
the personal element entered into these dissensions. Certainly the
essential differences between all three parties do not appear to have 1
been very great. The utterances of the Chief of Staff of the Irish

1 Irish Independent , 28 March 1934. 2 Ibid., 18 June 1934.

3 Irish Press, 2 October 1934.

406 DISSENSIONS ON LEFT AND RIGHT

Republican Army at this time, as recorded in An Phoblacht, proclaim
over and over again that the real enemy is the imperialist capitalist
system.

The internal differences among the parties of the Left did not result
in any appreciable diminution in the number of outrages and acts of
intimidation, most of which went unpunished. Prominent at this
time were several cases in which cinema proprietors were warned
against showing pictures which did not meet with the approval of
the extremists, and on the 3rd December direct action of an extremely
unpleasant kind was taken against one of the largest Dublin picture
houses for daring to show a film of the wedding of Princess Marina
to the Duke of Kent. 1 But the principal outrages were directed
against the persons and property of members of the United Ireland
Party, and in particular of the League of Youth or Blue Shirts. This
brings us to a consideration of the dissensions in the ranks of the
official Opposition, which had long been developing and which
reached their first crisis in the autumn of 1934.

It will be remembered that negotiations between Mr. Cosgrave’s
party and Mr. MacDermot’s National Centre Party had concluded
in the formation of the new United Ireland Party on the 8th September
1933, and that, to solve personal difficulties about leadership, Mr.
Cosgrave had stood down in favour of General O’Duffy, who was
thus brought in as a sort of deus ex machma to be chairman of the
party. The Blue Shirts, of which he was Director-General, were con-
stituted as a wing of United Ireland. From the very outset, the new
arrangement was thoroughly unsatisfactory. Mr. Cosgrave enjoyed,
and still enjoys, a personal popularity in the country far greater than
that of his party as a whole or of any other member of it ; and his
wide experience of politics, together with his previous headship of
the Government, designated him as the obvious leader of the united
Opposition. General O’Duffy had none of these advantages. He had
been a distinguished soldier and a first-class Chief of Police, and in
the realm of athletics he had shown himself to be a capable organizer.
But it quickly became apparent that he did not possess the special
qualities that equip a man for leadership in political life. He had no
seat in Parliament, and his numerous speeches too often indicated a
lack of responsibility. Many of them, indeed, put his new colleagues
in an embarrassing position.

The Blue Shirts, too, proved something of an incubus. This was a
wholly admirable movement when wisely led and divorced from
1 Irish Press , 4 December 1 934.

BLUE SHIRTS GET OUT OF HAND 407

politics; but a number of hot-beaded young men now began to ac-
quire an ascendancy in it, and they must have been uneasy bed-
fellows for the staid members of the parliamentary Opposition.
Their influence made itself felt in the party’s weekly newspaper.
United Ireland, which often took on a vituperative tone that must have
been distasteful to Mr. Cosgrave’s better-educated followers. Some of
its placards provided instances of unconscious humour, as, for in- "
stance, ‘UNITED IRELAND. McGilligan Flays De Valera’.

The general feeling of uneasiness at the policy, or lack of policy,
of the Opposition was not lessened by General O’Duffy’s flirtation
with the idea of a corporate State. Apart from thick-and-thin sup-
porters of the Government, few people took seriously the allegation
that he was aiming at a dictatorship, for he is much too genial to fill
the role of a Hitler or a Mussolini. But the whole Fascist conception
is repugnant to the vast majority of Irish people, who, with their
strongly marked individualism and their traditional attitude towards
constituted authority, are perhaps of all nations the least likely to
conform to a system which demands the subordination of human
personality.

Matters came to a head when, about midsummer, some of the
Blue Shirts got out of hand. At this time very large numbers of
farmers were defaulting over the payment of their rates and their
Land Annuities. As a result, their cattle %vere being seized and sold
by the sheriffs. By felling trees to block roads, cutting telephone wires,
and other unlawful means the Blue Shirts began to impede these
seizures and sales. At the first annual congress of the League of
Youth, held on the 18th and 19th August and presided over by
General O’Duffy, a resolution was passed calling on the farmers to
refuse to pay their Land Annuities, and on the labourers to refuse to
pay their rates, if the Government would neither suspend the demand
for payment nor refer the question to an impartial tribunal. 1 Such a
proposal cut at the root of all ordered government and could not be
countenanced for a moment by any responsible parliamentary oppo-
sition. On the 31st August the National Executive of the United Ire-
land Party met in Dublin, and after a prolonged discussion a state-
ment was issued that General O’Duffy had not pressed for the accep-
tance of the League of Youth resolution. At the same time, it was
announced that Professor James Hogan had resigned.

Professor Hogan occupies the Chair of History in University
College, Cork. He is a brother of the former Minister for Agriculture
1 United Ireland, 25 August 1934.

408 DISSENSIONS ON LEFT AND RIGHT

and was one of the ablest men in the counsels of his party. In a state-
ment issued to the Press he said that his resignation from the Execu-
tive was ‘the strongest protest I can personally make against the
general destructive and hysterical leadership of its President, General
O’Duffy’. ‘That Party can have no future so long as it retains at its
head as leader General O’Duffy. Whatever his good qualities may
be, in politics I have found him to be utterly impossible. It is about
time the United Ireland Party gave up its hopeless attempt of saving
General O’Duffy from his own errors.’ 1

It was obvious that such a situation could not continue, and on the
21st September it was announced from the offices of the United
Ireland Party that General O’Duffy had resigned the chairmanship
of the party. 2 There was then an unedifying dispute as to whether he
had also resigned the post of Director-General of the League of
Youth. The United Ireland Party held that he had, and appointed
Commandant Cronin to fill the vacancy. Mr. Cronin was a deter-
mined young man who had originated the idea of the blue shirt
uniform. A year previously he had been convicted by the Military
Tribunal of membership of an unlawful association (the Blue Shirts),
and, having refused to enter into recognizances, he had been sentenced
to three months’ imprisonment. General O’Duffy held that he him-
self was still Director-General, and there was a split in the ranks of
the Blue Shirts, some of them following General O’Duffy and the rest
following Commandant Cronin. The net result of the whole unplea-
sant affair was hopelessly to discredit the Blue Shirt movement and to
damage the prestige of the parliamentary Opposition.

Thus by the end of 1934 the extremists on the Left were rent by
dissensions, the constitutionalists on the Right had suffered the first
of a series of set-backs, and Mr. De Valera was left as a tertius
gaudcns.

1 Cork Examiner, 1 and 3 September 1934.

2 Ibid., 22 September 1934.

CHAPTER XXIV

THE SENATE AND ELECTORAL CHANGE.
THE ARMED POLICE

Senators and General O' Duffy — Senator Douglas's Bill to restore
the referendum for constitutional amendments — Passed by the Senate
and ignored by the Ddil—The Defence Forces Bill— Doubtful wisdom
of the Senate's action — The Bill to abolish university representation —
The Vice-President's reasons — The real object — The Electoral ( Revi-
sion of Constituencies) Bill— Infringement of minority rights — The two
Bills in the Dail — Attitude of the Senate — Senator Jameson's notable
speech — The Senate rejects the Bill to abolish university representation
— Its subsequent enactment — Amendments to the Electoral {Revision
of Constituencies) Bill— The Dail disagrees — The Chairman of the
Senate gives his casting vote in favour of the Government — The Chair-
man's difficult position — Unrest among the farmers — The armed police
— The shooting at Cork Sale Yard — Senator Wilson's motion — Retire-
ment of the Government party from the House — The motion passed —
The shooting justified by the Minister for Justice — Proceedings in the
High Court — Written judgement of Mr. Justice Hanna — His Lord-
ship's findings and conclusion — Confirmation by the Supreme Court on
appeal — The Fourth Triennial Election — Analysis of the result — The
defeated Senators — Increase in number of ex-members of the Dail —
The work of revision summarized.

It will be recalled that the Senate had rejected the Government’s
Bill to base the local government electorate on a universal adult
franchise. The local elections were due to take place on the 26th
June 1934, and, speaking on the 15th April as Leader of the Opposi-
tion, General O’Duffy stated that ‘they were at a great disadvantage
that the youth had not got a vote at these elections. It is our purpose
to give the youth of this country a sav, not only in national affairs,

409

410 THE SENATE AND ELECTORAL CHANGE

but in local affairs too.’ 1 In keeping with their curious belief that the
majority in the Senate were the obedient tools of the Opposition, the
Government attempted to initiate in the Senate, ten days later, a Bill
similar to that which had already been received from the Dail and
rejected. Moving for leave to introduce it, the Minister for Lands
(Senator Connolly) gave it as his opinion that this and similar state-
ments by General O’Duffy (which he quoted) were *an adequate
reason and justification for the Senate changing its view’. Senators
did not agree, and the motion was rejected by 30 votes to 17. 2 This
was the only occasion in its history on which leave to introduce a
Bill was refused by the Senate.

The introduction of the Senate Abolition Bill in the 'D&il on the
22nd March was followed on the 9th May by the initiation in the
Senate of the Constitution (Amendment No. 25) Bill. This measure
was sponsored by Senators Douglas, Brown, and O’Farrell, and its
purpose was to restore the referendum for constitutional amend-
ments. Under the Constitution as it then stood, amendments to- it
might be made by way of ordinary legislation, and without a refe-
rendum, up to the 5th December 1938, after which a referendum
became automatic for all such amendments. The effect of the Bill,
if passed, would have been to make the referendum apply to all
proposals to amend the Constitution by way of ordinary legislation
(including, of course, the Bill to abolish the Senate), provided that
it was demanded by two-fifths of the membership of the Ddil or a
majority of Senators. In a very able Second Reading speech Senator
Douglas showed that, under the Constitution, it was the people who
were sovereign and refuted a statement made in the D&il that that
House was a sovereign assembly. He also reviewed in detail the con-
stitutional position in various European countries and proved that,
apart from the dictatorship States, there was no country in which the
Constitution could be altered by a bare majority in one House.
Senator Brown, who seconded, expressed the opinion that when, in
1929, Parliament extended from eight to sixteen years the period
within which constitutional amendments might be made without a
referendum, it had done something which it had no power to do, and
that it had broken its contract with the people. He frankly admitted
that the point had not occurred to him in 1929.

Senator Connolly replied for the Government. He commented on
the fact that Senator Douglas had read his speech (as, in view of its
importance, he was quite entitled to do by custom), and attacked both
1 Irish Press, 16 April 1934. 2 Senate Debates, xviii, 1037-46.

THE ARMY BILL 411

him and Senator Brown for their inconsistency in seeking a partial
restoration of the referendum when they had supported its complete
abolition in 1928. The Labour Party was in favour of the Bill, and
the Second Reading was passed without a division. 1 The Final Stage
was passed on the 6th June (five days after the rejection of the Senate
Abolition Bill) and the Bill was sent to the D£il.

Here its fate was similar to the Senate’s earlier message requesting
a Joint Committee on the constitution and powers of the Second
Chamber. It was never discussed by the Ddil, and it appeared as an
item on every successive Dail Order Paper printed thenceforward for
nearly two years, until the Senate was abolished on the 29th May
1936. If the Bill had been passed, most of Mr. De Valera’s plans
with regard to the Constitution would have been rendered difficult
of execution, and possibly abortive. Even its discussion by the Ddil
would have been inconvenient and dangerous ; inconvenient, because
Mr. De Valera would have found it hard to justify its rejection, in
view of his previous attitude in 1928 and of his regard for the sove-
reignty of the people : dangerous, because the Labour Party might
have supported it, as their colleagues had done in the Senate, in which
case it would probably have been carried against the Government.

The refusal of the Senate to renew the Defence Forces Act beyond
the 31st July 1934 necessitated the introduction of a fresh Con-
tinuance Bill well in advance of that date. This Bill, entitled the
Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, came before
the Senate for Second Reading on the 6th June. The granting of com-
missions in the Volunteer Force to ex-members of the Irish Republi-
can Army was again referred to, and Senator Blythe intimated his
intention of again tabling amendments to provide that no person
should be appointed to commissioned rank who had not undergone
a period of training. This time the Chairman fortified himself by
obtaining the opinion of the Committee on Procedure, which unani-
mously advised that the amendments were out of order, on the
ground that any amendment to a Bill which merely continues the
operation of a single expiring Act, other than an amendment altering
the length of time of the continuance, is outside the scope of the
Bill as read a second time. 2 The amendments were accordingly dis-
allowed on this ground.

The Senate thereupon, on the initiative of Senator Blythe, inserted
an amendment, by 22 votes to 12, limiting the operation of the Con-
tinuance Bill to the 30th November 1934, instead of the 31st July
i Senate Debates, xviii, 1162-94. 2 Ibid., xviii, 1561, 1562.

412 .THE SENATE AND ELECTORAL CHANGE

1935, which was the date in the Bill as passed by the D&il. 1 The other
House disagreed with the amendment, and the Senate did not insist
upon it, but altered the date to the 31st March. This was convenient,
as being the end of the financial year ; and the new amendment was
agreed to by the Dail.

Opinions will doubtless differ as to the wisdom or propriety of this
action of the Senate with regard to the Defence Forces, following, as
it did, on similar action taken only a few months previously. Those
Senators who voted for the amendment on each occasion had per-
haps this excuse, that the Minister for Defence, like all his predeces-
sors in the Cosgrave Government, had promised to bring in a
permanent Army Bill at an early date, to replace the existing Act
which had been introduced and passed in 1923 avowedly as a tempo-
rary measure. Moreover, in addition to the question of the Volunteer
Force, there was a rumour, referred to during the debate, that Major-
General Brennan, whose term of office as Chief of Staff was about to'
expire, was to be replaced by a very prominent former Irregular
leader. Even if all these facts be granted, it seems difficult to justify
the action of the Senate on the second occasion in virtually holding
up the Government at the pistol point with regard to the Army.
Actually, the rumour concerning the Chief of Staff was falsified later.
Major-General Brennan was appointed for a further term on the 16th
October 1935, and he continued in office until his retirement in Jan-
uary 1940, his successor as Chief of Staff being a senior officer of the
Regular Army.

We are now to consider two Bills which are closely connected and
of which one was rejected by the Senate and the other suspended for
a considerable time as a result of action taken by it. Both are con-
cerned with the membership of the Dail.

Under Article 26 of the Constitution the Ddil was to be composed
of members representing constituencies to be determined by law. The
number of members was to be fixed from time to time by Parliament,
but the total (exclusive of university members) was not to be less
than one for each 30,000 of the population, nor more than one for
each 20,000. Parliament was charged with the duty of revising the
constituencies at least once in every ten years, in accordance with
changes in population as ascertained at the last preceding census.

Under Article 27, the two universities, that is to say, Dublin
University (Trinity College) and the National University of Ireland,
were entitled to elect three members each.

1 Senate Debates, xviii, 1641-63.

UNIVERSITY MEMBERS ABOLISHED 413

The constituencies, and the number of members allotted to each,
were specified in the Eighth Schedule of the Electoral Act, 1923 ,
which became law on the 17th April 1923. Altogether, there were
1 53 members, inclusive of the six members for the universities.

The decennial revision required by the Constitution should presu-
mably have been undertaken before the I6th April 1933, but the
Government took no steps in the matter until nearly a year later,
when two Bills were introduced in the Dail on the same day (15th
February 1934). One of them, the Constitution (Amendment No. 23)
Bill, proposed to abolish university representation. The other was the
Electoral (Revision of Constituencies) Bill,which deleted the Schedule
contained in the Act of 1923 and substituted a new one, providing
for a Dail of 138 members. Under the Constitution, none of these
changes could come into effect until after a dissolution.

Let us take first the Bill for the abolition of university representa-
tion. The Vice-President (Mr. O’Kelly), who introduced it, sought to
justify it on three grounds : (1) the representation was out of all pro-
portion to the number of electors concerned ; (2) if a university educa-
tion made a person more suitable to exercise the franchise, ‘this body
of intelligent voters should be distributed throughout the consti-
tuencies generally to leaven the mass’; (3) a number of the electors
on the University Register were domiciled outside the country. 1
These reasons seem inadequate for depriving of the services of six
educated men an Assembly which stood in great need of such ser-
vices. The real object of the Bill, however, was to strengthen Mr. De
Valera’s hold on power. Experience of the proportional representa-
tion system, as operated up to that time, had shown how difficult
it was for any single party to obtain a clear majority. At the last
general election (which marked his greatest success to date) Mr. De
Valera had 77 seats out ofl53, or exactly half the House apart from
the Chairman, who belonged to his party. If he could disfranchise
some of his opponents, the position would be redressed in his favour.
Normally, the three members for Dublin University voted against
him on constitutional issues, especially on those connected with the
maintenance of the Commonwealth connection. As regards the
National University, it had been represented by three supporters of
Mr. Cosgrave from September 1927 to the dissolution of 1932, one
of them being the Chairman of the Ddil, whose return was automatic.
From 1932 to 1933 there were two members of the Cosgrave party
and one of Fianna Fdil. In 1933 the positions were reversed. By
• 1 Dai! Debates, lii, 479-81.

414 THE SENATE .AND ELECTORAL CHANGE

abolishing university representation, therefore, Mr. De Valera stood
to get rid of four or five opponents at the cost of losing one or two
supporters. The Government had no mandate for this amendment
of the Constitution, which, apart from its other obvious demerits,
was a breach of faith with the Southern Unionist minority. Griffith
and O’Higgins had promised a Senate, with university representation
in that Senate. Later, this representation was transferred by consent
to the Ddil. Now, both the Senate and university representation were
to disappear.

The only other undertaking given to the Southern Unionists was
that the rights of minorities should be respected by the adoption of
proportional representation in elections for the D&il. This under-
taking was to be rendered practically valueless by the Electoral
(Revision of Constituencies) Bill. It is an accepted fact that propor-
tional representation does not afford a reasonable chance of repre-
sentation for minorities in constituencies returning less than five
members, and that in constituencies returning only three members a
minority has virtually no chance at all of electing its candidate. A
certain number of three- and four-member constituencies is, for
geographical reasons, unavoidable ; but the fewer they are the better
the system works.

The position under the Electoral Act, 1923, was as follows :

Constituencies returning 9 members 1

Constituencies returning 8 members 3

Constituencies returning 7 members 5

Constituencies returning 5 members 9

Constituencies returning 4 members 4

Constituencies returning 3 members 6

This gives a total membership of 147, exclusive of the six members
for the universities.

The new Bill made provision for a Dail of 138 members, the reduc-
tion of nine being due to changes in population: and there was to
be a startling increase in the number of constituencies having less
than five members, as the following table will show.

Constituencies returning 7 members 3

Constituencies returning 5 members 8

Constituencies returning 4 members 8

Constituencies returning 3 members 15

Whereas under the existing law there were only ten constituencies

THE CONSTITUENCIES RE-DRAWN 415

having less than five members, out of a total of twenty-eight, there
were now to be twenty-three out of a total of thirty-four; and the
four constituencies which returned eight or nine members each were
to disappear altogether. This was not all, however. Local patriotism
and administrative convenience had alike been disregarded by the
re-drawing of the constituencies, bits of counties being lopped off and
joined on to others.

Very able speeches were made in the D£il against both these Bills.
In particular, the content and quality of those delivered by the
members for the universities showed, by contrast, how much poorer
intellectually the popular Chamber would be after their disappear-
ance. Professor Thrift (now the Provost of Trinity College) said that
the abolition of university representation was a breach of the agree-
ment with the Southern Unionists. The Minister stated that no such
understanding was on the records, and the Professor replied, ‘There
was an understanding, although whether it is on record or not I
cannot say.’ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance
(Mr. Hugo Flinn) thereupon interjected, ‘It is in the Lodge.’ A few
moments later. Professor Thrift repeated his remark, and Mr. Flinn
again interjected, ‘It is in the Lodge.’ 1 The allusion, of course, is
to Freemasonry. Professor Thrift gave the retort courteous which is
appropriate in such circumstances: ‘I do not pay any attention to
Deputy Flinn’s remarks.’

It is as well that this question of an undertaking or agreement
should be cleared up. It is not disputed that university representation
in the Senate was provided for in the written agreement with the
Southern Unionists concluded after the Treaty. 2 When the Constitu-
tion was before the Constituent Assembly and the offer was made by
Kevin O’Higgins to transfer this representation to the Dail (4th
October 1922), Professor Thrift gladly accepted it, but suggested to
him ‘to notify the three gentlemen who claimed to represent Southern
Unionists, and see if they are satisfied with the alteration’. 3 Presu-
mably O’Higgins did so, but the point is not very material. A fort-
night later, when moving the insertion of the Article giving univer-
sity representation in the Ddil, he stated that he did so, being
‘anxious to make it quite clear that we did not simply enter into an
agreement with certain people in London and come home and run
away from it, but simply giving in place of what we removed from
that agreement something considered of more value by the very
people it was intended to cater for’. 4

i Ddil Debates, lii, 599, 600. 2 Ibid., i, 355. 3 Ibid., i, 1153. 4 Ibid., i, 1726.

416 THE SENATE AND ELECTORAL CHANGE

Both Bills were passed by the Ddil by mechanical majorities and
were sent to the Senate. The most notable contribution to the debate
on the University Bill in that House was made by Senator Jameson.
In the course of his speech he said :

‘All the promises that were made by Mr. Griffith, Mr. Collins and
Mr. O’Higgins are being swept away. . . . The thing of importance to
this country is not that we, ex-Unionists, are being swept out of
representation. Not at all. Not that the Universities are being swept
out of representation, but that we are face to face with a state of
affairs when the Party at present in power means to dominate the
whole situation and to dictate to the whole of the Free State what it
is to do. They are not merely putting out of business ex-Unionists
and the members for the Universities, but their whole effort is to put
the political representatives of the people in opposition to them out
of business. . . . We have seen the powers of the law strained abso-
lutely to the limit to put the representatives of the Opposition, if
possible, into gaol, and anyhow to use every means that a Govern-
ment could possibly use to attack them and to prevent them from
getting a free method of stating their case. Let Senators think of the
measures we have had here lately. We had a Bill dealing with the
constituencies, so altering them as to bring in a large number of
three-member constituencies, which undoubtedly will do away with
the chances of Independent members, representing minorities, getting
into the Dail. Then we have a Bill at present before the House which
proposes to take away representation which is also of an indepen-
dent nature, University representation. Then we had a Bill which, at
the end of next year, will sweep the Senate out of existence. . . .

4 If the Government do favour the country with an opportunity of
expressing its opinion . . . they will then have prepared the ground-
work to give power to a solitary party. . . . They can make any laws
they please. They can declare a Republic if they please. They can
alter the laws to suit their views and to deal with their political
opponents, so as generally to establish a Party dictatorship in this
country. . . . This Bill about which we are now talking is only part
of a great hoax. What this country will be face to face with at the
end of two years is the domination of one Party, and one man at
the head of that Party, with all that Party bowing in acquiescence.’ 1

The Senate rejected the Bill on the 18th July 1934, by 30 votes to
15. The suspensory period of eighteen months expired on the 4th
January 1936 and the Bill was again sent up on the following 6th
1 Senate Debates, xviii, 1979, 1980.

EFFORT TO SAFEGUARD MINORITIES 417

February. 1 The Senate had now only sixty days in which to consider
it. The Bill was passed with an amendment providing that it should
not come into operation until six months after the next dissolution. 2
This would have ensured university representation in the next Parlia-
ment, and in case of a change of government the Bill would have
been dropped. On the 12th March the D&il disagreed with the amend-
ment. 3 Six days later the Senate insisted upon it. Finally, on the 23rd
April, an enactment resolution was passed by the Dail over the head
of the Senate, and the Bill was signed by the Governor-General on
the following day. 4

We must now retrace our steps to 1934 and deal with the Electoral
(Revision of Constituencies) Bill. The Second Reading was taken
on the 27th June, when the Bill was subjected to detailed and in-
formed criticism from all quarters of the House, and in particular
from Senators O’Farrell and Douglas. On the Committee Stage a
fortnight later a new schedule of constituencies was inserted on the
initiative of Senators Brown and Douglas of the Independent Group
and Senators Counihan and Wilson of the United Ireland Party.
This sought to protect the rights of minorities by reducing the
number of three-member constituencies while leaving the total
membership unaltered at 138. This is made clear by the following

table:

Constituencies returning 9 members 1

Constituencies returning 8 members 4

Constituencies returning 7 members 5

Constituencies returning 6 members 1

Constituencies returning 5 members 4

Constituencies returning 4 members 6

Constituencies returning 3 members 4

As has been said, proportional representation works fairly and
effectively in constituencies which return five members or over. Under
the law then existing, only thirty-four members (out of a total of 147)
were returned from constituencies having fewer than five members.
Under the Government’s Bill, this number was to be increased to
seventy-seven out of a reduced total of 138. The magnitude of the
change is thus apparent. The Senate’s amendment reduced the figure
of seventy-seven to thirty-six. The Bill was passed with this and

1 Ddil Debates, lx, 46-149, 225-48.

2 Senate Debates, xx, 1939-2008, 201 1-47.

a DM Debates, lx, 2122-60. ' 4 Ibid., lxi, 1297-1396, 1503-28.

418 THE SENATE AND ELECTORAL CHANGE
certain consequential amendments on the 18th July and returned to
the Dail. 1

The Dail disagreed with the amendments on the following day; 2
and on the 22nd August the Senate took the eminently reasonable
course of requesting a joint conference of five members of each
House to discuss the points of disagreement. 3 This request was
ignored for nearly six months until, on the 14th February 1935, the
Dail refused it. 4 Six days later the message conveying the refusal
came before the Senate. By this time, owing to the Triennial Election,
the composition of the House had changed, and on the question
whether or not the Senate should insist on its amendment the voting
was even, nineteen Senators being on each side. The Chairman there-
upon gave his casting vote against the amendment and in favour of
the Government, on the ground that the decennial revision of the
constituencies required by the Constitution was already overdue, and
that if he voted the other way the Bill might be suspended and the
revision postponed still further. 5 The Bill therefore became law in its
original form, with one minor amendment to rectify an error which
had passed unnoticed in the Ddil.

Ever since the Chairman had delivered his striking speech in
defence of the Senate from the floor of the House he had, as he had
promised, resumed his rigid impartiality between all parties and
groups. An instance of this has just been given, when he saved the
Government from an awkward situation by giving his casting vote
in their favour. But members of the Fianna Fdil Party could not for-
give him for this speech, and their attitude towards the Chair under-
went a change for the worse. This was exemplified in an episode which
it is desirable to refer to in some detail, in view of the issues involved
and of the light thrown on the methods by which the country was now
being governed.

Mention has been made in the last chapter of the obstruction that
was being offered to the seizure and sale of cattle owned by farmers
who were in default over their Land Annuity payments. The seizure
and sale, which were perfectly legal, were carried out by the sheriff
under a warrant from the Land Commission, and the sale was by
public auction. As the ordinary farmer would not buy cattle in such
circumstances, the sales were attended by men who passed under
fictitious names and who made their purchases at a gross under-

1 Senate Debates, XV iii, 1673-97, 191 1-46, 2005-16.

2 Dail Debates, liii, 1764-76. 3 Senate Debates, xix, 6-9.

4 Dail Debates, liv, 205 1-6. 6 Senate Debates, xix, 1 294-1 303.

MOTION ON CORK SHOOTING AFFRAY 419

value. A considerable amount of feeling was generated among the
farmers, and ‘the anonymous buyers were protected by members of
the new armed police, popularly known as the Broy Harriers. On the
13th August 1934 such an auction was to be held at Marsh’s Sale
Yard in the City of Cork. A large crowd assembled, mainly composed
of farmers, and these were kept back by a cordon of Civic Guards. A
lorry filled with about fifteen men carrying sticks, but otherwise
unarmed, was driven through the cordon and crashed through the
closed gate of the Sale Yard, being followed into the yard by three
or four persons, one of whom was a young boy named Michael
Lynch. The armed police opened fire, with the result that Lynch was
shot and died later the same day, and seven other people were
wounded.

On the 6th September Senator Wilson brought before the Senate
a motion condemning the shooting, demanding that those who took
part in the fusillade be put on trial, and requesting that in future no
Civic Guard be permitted to carry firearms who had not undergone
the full ordinary training of members of the Force. The Minister for
Lands (Senator Connolly) objected to the motion being taken at that
time, on the ground that certain persons (not the police) had been
arrested in connection with the affair and that the matter was sub
judice . The Chairman, who had given consideration to the question,
cited numerous exact precedents from the proceedings of the House
of Commons, and concluded: ‘It is clear on all the authorities that
the motion is in order. It purports to condemn the action of the
police, and not the action of the men who are about to be tried. So.
far as I am concerned, I shall do my best to ensure that nothing is
said during the debate which might conceivably prejudice the fair
trial of these men. A public tumult or affray is a matter of the gravest
public importance, and the Oireachtas is the proper forum in which
to discuss it.’ Senator Connolly then made a short reply, in which he
said: ‘With regard to your ruling, I have no fault to find. . . . You
can rule and decide within your own jurisdiction what you wish to
do. That does not, at the same time, prevent us from taking any line
of action that we choose to take.’ He and his followers then retired
from the House. Such an occurrence had never happened before in
the history of the Senate, and it created a most painful impression.
The motion was duly debated and carried without a division. 1

On the following 14th November the matter was raised on the
adjournment in the Dail, and the Minister for Justice (who was res-
1 Senate Debates, xix, 735-62.

420 THE ARMED POLICE

ponsiblc for the armed police) stated that the shooting was justified,
and that he was satisfied it was justified, on every ground. 1

The whole affair had a remarkable sequel. The father of the boy
who had been killed sued Chief Superintendent Fitzgerald, who was
the responsible officer in charge of the Civic Guard in Cork at the
time, and three of the armed police, named Moore, Condon, and
Rodgers, for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846 (Lord
Campbell’s Act). The action was tried in the High Court by the Hon.
Mr. Justice Hanna, sitting without a jury. His Lordship’s written
judgement, dated the 5th April 1937, is likely to become a classic on
the law relating ta the use of firearms by the armed forces of the
State. Moreover, it seems to justify many of the actions of the Senate
which incurred the hostility of the Government, such as its con-
demnation of the recruitment of armed police or Broy Harriers into
the Civic Guard (22nd August 1933), its rejection of the Blue Shirt
Bill (21st March 1934), and finally its motion of censure on the
shooting in Cork (6th September 1934). In view of its importance,
extensive extracts will be given from it here. 2

His Lordship began by setting forth the nature of the claim and
of the several defences, as disclosed in the pleadings. He mentioned
the non-payment of Land Annuities by farmers and the steps taken by
the Government for recovery, and referred more particularly to inci-
dents alleged to have occurred at the same Cork Sale Yard on the
27th July 1934, that is to say, about a fortnight before the affray. ‘At
that sale it is alleged that there were three anonymous gentlemen,
each of whom was known as O’Neill, one of whom was the purchaser
at the sale. Until a late stage in this case everyone believed that there
was only one man named O’Neill, who was referred to as either Mr.
O’Neill or the man O’Neill, but an extraordinary state of affairs
was alleged by the defendant Moore that these three men all passed
by the name of O’Neill as a kind of trade name. How far this is true
of this mysterious triumvirate I do not know, as none of these buyers
was produced as a witness. It seems, however, that one man was
known as “Bum” O’Neill.’

Mr. Justice Hanna referred to threats alleged to have been offered
to ‘Bum’ O’Neill on the 27th July, but pointed out that these threats
were not taken seriously at the time and that ‘ Chief Superintendent
Fitzgerald, a sensible and experienced officer, took this view’. ‘I have
formed the opinion that what took place on the 27th had no impor-

1 Ddil Debates, !iv, 185-200.

* Lynch r. Fitzgerald and others. Irish Law Times Reports,^ ol.lxxi, pp. 212-24.

MR. JUSTICE HANNA’S JUDGEMENT 421
tance attached to it at the time by anyone but has been brought into
the present case now as an afterthought in an endeavour to streng-
then the position of the defendants. In my opinion it only demon-
strates what the authorities already knew— that there was great
hostility and objection to the O’Neill personnel at the sales.’ He be-
lieved that more importance was to be attached to the fact that the
Civic Guards in Cork became aware that there was to be a demon- .
stration on the 13th August and took special precautions to keep the
peace on that occasion. -

His Lordship next considered the position of the armed police. ‘It
is necessary here to describe the protection given to the buyer or the
composite buyer when attending a sale. The buyers were protected
by members of what is known as the “S” Division of the Garda
Slochdna. Now who are they? . . . From the autumn of 1933 I am of
opinion that a special body of armed men, called by courtesy
“Guards” and taking the Oath as Civic Guards, but designated
officially “S” men, was formed for the specific purpose of putting
into force the powers of the Government under Article 2a of the
Constitution, the Treasonable Offences Act and the Firearms Act ;
and also, when required, to do special protection duty for individuals.
They were not given the training or discipline of the ordinary uni-
formed Guards, which is long and effective. For about three months
they were given instruction in these Acts of Parliament and their
duties thereunder ; but I am satisfied on the evidence that these men
were selected mainly for their skill and experience with the gun. If I
am to take the seven of these men who appeared before me as typical,
they had all been members of the Irish Republican Army and ad-
mitted that they were skilled and accustomed to the use of firearms
long before joining the armed forces of the State. In the execution of
the duties detailed to them as members of the armed forces, they were
uncontrolled and left to their own undisciplined judgment in the use
of firearms. It was submitted on their behalf that, having regard to
the nature of their work, this was inevitable. While not accepting that
contention, it would seem that, even if it were so, there was all the
more necessity for careful training and severe discipline. It is neces-
sary to make this clear inasmuch as the ordinary uniformed Civic
Guards and the crime (ordinary) detective officers undergo a pro-
longed training and discipline before they are released upon the
public — training which ensures judgment, prudence and self-control,
by reason of which they have never become a menace to civil liberty.

‘One of these extra duties put on the “S” men was the protec-

422 THE ARMED POLICE

tion of the anonymous buyers at the land annuities auctions. The
defendants and some others had been at Marsh’s Yard on 27th July.
One of these was the defendant Moore, who, though without rank,
assumed to be and was accepted as a sort of leader by the others.
Between 27th July and 13th August (namely, on Thursday, the 9th)
the notice of the demonstration and meeting had been issued, and
on Saturday, 11th August, Moore went to Superintendent Weir, who
was acting in charge of the “S” section in Dublin during the absence
of Superintendent McGloin, and told him that he expected trouble
in Cork on Monday, the 13th, and he would like some more men and
arms beyond the usual number of seven men armed with revolvers.
He was not given extra men. He was given extra arms in the form of
four rifles and 200 rounds of ammunition.

‘Now, I would pause here to say that, if there was a belief on the
part of the authorities that a breach of the peace would occur re-
quiring extra men or arms, the meeting should have been proclaimed
under section 24 of Article 2a of the Constitution. . . . This power of
proclaiming meetings is to prevent the very thing that subsequently
happened — a conflict between the Guards and civilians, and to act,
further, as a serious warning to those who might be inclined to take
part in the meeting.

‘I am satisfied that the authorities knew that this would be a big
meeting and extra precautions should be taken on this occasion. The
three anonymous buyers, so-called O’Neill (including “Bum” O’Neill),
went from Dublin to Marsh’s Yard in two cars accompanied by
seven of the “S” men, each armed with revolver and ammunition,
and having in each car two rifles and 100 rounds of -303 ammunition.
They said their special duty was to protect the life of O’Neill or the
lives of the three O’Neills.’

Mr. Justice Hanna next proceeded to describe in detail the topo-
graphy of the area adjoining the Sale Yard and of the Sale Yard itself.
He then dealt with the arrangements made by the local Civic Guards
in Cork to deal with any disturbance that might arise.

‘In my opinion their plans were well-conceived and satisfactory
from ever}' point of view, as the result showed. Chief Superintendent
Fitzgerald was in charge of the whole force from Cork. The “S”
men from Dublin clearly repudiated any authority on his part to in-
terfere with them in any way, their view being that they would not
have taken orders from him, that they knew their own job and would
carry it out as they thought best. I have formed the opinion that
Chief Superintendent Fitzgerald, in face of this deliberate repudia-

THE FUSILLADE 423

tion, was not quite sure of his position with regard to these men, but
I am satisfied that if he had seen them doing anything wrong and had
an opportunity of interfering he would have done so. The “S” men
came into the Yard, parked their lorries between the covered pens
and the sales ring and apparently wandered about as they liked in-
side the Yard.’

With regard to the number and character of the crowd outside the
yard, the judge said : ‘Taking what I consider the most reliable esti-
mates, I think there must have been about 1,500 people present. They
have been described as an ordinary crowd, orderly and peaceful, with
no signs of arms or weapons. It was suggested that the men from the
country had concealed about their persons bludgeons and sticks as if
by arrangement in preparation for violence. I am not prepared to
accept this, but I am equally certain that most of the farmers had
sticks with them such as ashplants and the heavy sticks that are
usually carried in fairs.’

His Lordship next described how the lorry drove through the
cordons of police and crashed through the gate into the Sale Yard,
followed by the boy Lynch and a few others. He found as a fact,
which he stated to be an important fact, that the cordon at the gate
was immediately re-formed and the crowd, save a few, kept out of the
yard. Within fifteen or twenty seconds of the lorry’s crashing through
the gate the police had the outside situation under control. Once the
lorry and its crew got into the Yard, they were trapped. The lorry
. itself was hemmed in by cattle pens and barriers, and a police cordon
which was inside the gate was instantly re-formed. ‘Accordingly there
was no escape for the men or those who had followed them.’ His
Lordship found that the number of men in the lorry was between
twelve and fifteen, together with the driver and one man outside, and
that only three or four of the crowd followed the lorry into the yard.

‘We come now to the crucial question as to the firing. The seven
“S” men, without any officer or control, were at various points

throughout the Yard There is no doubt in my mind that Moore

started the fusillade. Coming back from the gate he heard the crash,
turned, called on his comrades either to get ready or used some other
words which they undoubtedly took as a command or suggestion to
open fire on the crowd trapped in the lorry or about the gate. Moore
fired forthwith, emptying his revolver at a distance of 15 or 20 yards.
He then obtained a rifle from the cars and discharged several rifle
shots. Condon emptied his revolver and then took his rifle from the
car and fired with it out of the window of the sales ring. Rodgers,

424 THE ARMED POLICE

the other defendant, fired from his revolver and continued firing after
being warned to stop by Mr. O’Neill, T. D. [Mr. Edmond O’Neill, a
member of the Cosgrave Party in the Dail and of the Blue Shirts],
and until finally stopped by Superintendent Bergin. I have no reliable
evidence as to the checking of the ammunition of the “S” men and
I am not satisfied as to the number of shots fired at the crowd or, as
alleged, in the air. It was alleged that twenty shots were fired in the
air, but I do not think any of these men would waste a shot. I believe

that all of them fired to kill It is immaterial to this action that the

other “S” men with the exception of O’Dowd also took part in the
fusillade

‘ Some of the civilians, when they were seeking shelter from the fire,
ran towards some tar barrels at the right of the gate. One of these was
young Lynch. I think it was as he ran that he was shot in the stomach.
He had got into the shelter of a barrel when Mrs. O’Neill [wife of
Mr. Edmond O’Neill], with great courage, ran to help him. A remark-
able fact which has impressed me very much is that on this barrel
behind which Lynch crouched there were bullet marks. One was the
mark of a bullet having hit the tar barrel but it did not penetrate; the
second was the entrance hole and an exit, and the third was an
entrance hole only. These marks were seen by the photographer for
the Guards but were not photographed. They indicate to me that
after the young fellow had got into some shelter, wounded as he was,
some of the “S” men endeavoured to kill him. Attempted murder
is the only expression in law to describe such conduct. It is unneces-
sary to further consider the humane treatment of Lynch by Mr. and
Mrs. O’Neill and some of the uniformed Guards. He died that night
from his wounds, which were undoubtedly caused by the firing.
Seven other persons were wounded,’

Having stated that Chief Superintendent Fitzgerald, who was the
officer in charge of the Civic Guards, ‘certainly gave no order for the
firing nor did he authorize or ratify it in any way whatever so as to
make him liable’, Mr. Justice Hanna continued :

‘Mr. Black [Counsel for the defence, now the Hon. Mr. Justice
Black, of the High Court], with that liberty of language which is
allowed to an advocate, said it was absurd that the necessity of the
occasion should be determined by an armchair strategist, meaning,
with all courtesy, the Court. Fortunately or unfortunately, it is the
law that a judge, hearing the evidence of both sides, is the person
considered best qualified to decide such an issue. Above all, the judge
has the great responsibility of standing between the civil population

THE JUDGE’S STRICTURES 425

and the executive forces of the State and of determining whether the
powers of the latter have been exceeded. Civilians have no other pro-
tection than the Judiciary, to whom accordingly absolute indepen-
dence is guaranteed.

‘Let us briefly summarize the facts as to the conditions outside and
inside the Yard on the question of protection. Outside the Yard there
were about 200 capable Guards with about a dozen armed detectives.
After a few moments they held the crowd in check, save a few. Inside
the Yard there were 40 Guards, including 10 ordinary detective
officers armed. The lorry with its load of men had run into a veritable
trap, as it was surrounded on all sides by barriers and Guards and
could not make any headway. None of the men in the lorry had
arms. They had sticks. The Guards inside the gate who subdued them
had no arms — only batons, and none of the armed men inside or
outside the Yard thought it necessary to resort to firearms except the
defendants and their colleagues. The suggestion that these forces
were not sufficient to protect both the “S” men and their charges
against the lorry men and the few who came in following it, who had
only the usual weapons of an Irish country crowd, cannot be ac-
cepted by any reasonable person. I certainly cannot hold for a
moment that there was any justification for sending fusillade after
fusillade of revolver and rifle shots into the men huddled in the lorry
and at the three or four men running to escape.’

His Lordship then reviewed at considerable length the various legal
decisions on the question of the suppression of civil disturbance by
armed force, some of the cases cited being concerned with riots which
had been the subject of House of Commons rulings quoted by the
Chairman of the Senate. He showed that on none of the legal
tests applicable to the case could the three defendants, Moore,
Condon, and Rodgers, receive a favourable decision; and he con-
tinued:

‘There has been disclosed a very striking and lamentable fact from
the standpoint of public safety, namely, the deliberate repudiation by
these armed “S” men of the authority and control of the Cork
officers. This bears upon their irresponsibility. Surely it cannot be
that when seven armed men of ordinary rank are sent out without a
sergeant or officer in control, to do duty in a disturbed area, where
there are a chief superintendent and several superintendents and in-
spectors, we are to be told that they are entitled to snap their fingers
at those officers and be a law unto themselves. This is not a case of
one man or two men protecting an individual, but of seven. The fact

426 THE ARMED POLICE

that Moore and Condon were made sergeants shortly after this
occurrence cannot deceive anyone. It is too obvious. An ordinary
Guard takes years of hard service to attain the rank of sergeant, but
these two men, notwithstanding their want of training and know-
ledge of Guards’ duties, are given (I do not say attain) that rank in
about a year after joining the force. These “ S ” men are not real Civic
Guards. They are an excrescence upon that reputable body.’

Concluding his judgement, Mr. Justice Hanna gave judgement in
favour of Chief Superintendent Fitzgerald, and as regards the issues
of fact raised he answered as follows :

‘1. Q. Was it necessary in the last resort for Moore, Condon and
Rodgers to fire on the lorry, and the men who came after it, in order
to protect the lives of the prospective buyers, as alleged?

*A. No.

‘2. Q. Did the three defendants, Moore, Condon and Rodgers,
bona fide believe at the time that it was necessary as a last resort to
fire on the loriy, and the men who came after it, in order to protect
the lives of the prospective buyers?

*A. No.

‘3. Q. Was it an emergency in which, having regard to all the
circumstances, it was excusable or justifiable for the three defendants,
Moore, Condon and Rodgers, to fire on the lorry and the men follow-
ing the lorry in order to protect the lives of the prospective buyers?

'A. No.

‘4. Q. Did the defendants, Moore, Condon and Rodgers, resort to
unjustifiable force in firing as alleged?

‘A. Yes.

‘5. 0. Did the deceased boy, Lynch, receive the injuries from
which he died from the wrongful act or acts of the defendants acting
as a group with a common unlawful purpose?

* A . Yes.

‘6. Q. Damages?

'A. £300.’

His Lordship then concluded as follows: ‘But this case should not
end with the determination of the civil liability of the defendants.
The evidence disclosed a prima facie case of manslaughter, and it is
the duty of the Court before which a prima facie case of a criminal
oficncc is committed to call the attention of the Attorney-General to
it and to the judge’s opinion. Accordingly, it will be my duty to direct
the attention of the Attorney-General to the evidence in this case and

THE JUDGEMENT UPHELD ON APPEAL 427

to my judgment thereon, with an expression of my opinion that the
criminal liability of these three defendants against whom I have given
judgment should be investigated by a jury. This investigation of the
criminal liability is all the more necessary as the three defendants be-
longed to the armed forces of the State and there cannot be one rule
for them, when their acts result in the death of a citizen , and another
in the case of a motor driver who causes a death and has to stand his
trial before a juiy.’

An appeal was made from this judgement to the Supreme Court.
On the 30th July 1937 reserved judgement was delivered by the
Supreme Court, unanimously dismissing the appeal with costs.

It has been necessary to give these extensive extracts from the
judgement of Mr. Justice Hanna, partly because of the intrinsic im-
portance of the judgement itself, but also because of the light which
it throws on the administration of justice at this time. The strictures
passed upon the defendants may also be said to reflect upon the Gov-
ernment. Coming from any other source, such strictures might be
disregarded as a mere ex parte statement of opinion ; but this is not
possible in the case of a judgement of the High Court, founded upon
the evidence. With regard to the judge’s opinion that the criminal
liability of Moore, Condon, and Rodgers should be investigated by a
jury, it suffices to say that no such investigation ever took place.

The fourth Triennial Election to the Senate was held in November
1934. It took place under the shadow of abolition, and it was as great
a failure as its two predecessors held under the same system. As ’in
1931, there were twenty-three vacancies, caused by the following re-
tirements : seven of the original fifteen Senators who had been nomi-
nated for twelve years in 1922 (all the rest having died or resigned) ;
nine who had been elected for six years in 1928 ; two who had been
elected for three years in 1931 ; and five who had been elected to fill
casual vacancies in the period then current. The Constitution re-
quired that there should be a panel of forty-six names, composed as
to one-half by the Senate and as to the other half by the Dail. This
requirement was not fulfilled. The Senate portion, which was formed
first, consisted merely of the eighteen retiring Senators who were
offering themselves for re-election. The Ddil portion contained only
seventeen names, and six of these were duplicated from the Senate
portion. There were thus only twenty-nine candidates for the twenty-
three seats. At the time the panel was formed a by-election was in
progress, the candidates being Mr, P. F. Baxter and Mr. P . Lynch;
K.C. Both names were placed on the Dail portion of the panel.

428 THE ARMED POLICE

The result of the election was as follows :

* 1 . T. W. Westropp Bennett.

* 2. James C. Dowdall.

* 3. Edmund J. Duggan.

* 4. Andrew Jameson.

* 5. Raphael P. Keyes.

* 6. Thomas Johnson.

* 7. Kathleen A. Browne.

* 8. Patrick Lynch, K.C.

9. Thomas Ruane.

10. Pddraic 0 Maille.

11. Thomas V. Honan.

12. Denis D. Healy.

13. James J. Boyle.

14. Seamus Fitzgerald.

*15. Jennie Wyse Power.

*16. Dr. Oliver St. John Gogarty.
17. Thomas Kennedy.

*18. Richard Wilson.

*19. Ernest Blythe.

20. Patrick F. Baxter.

*21. Samuel L. Brown.

*22. John Bagwell.

*23. Sir Edward Coey Bigger.

In view of the imminent disappearance of the Senate, the order of
election was immaterial ; but the first twenty Senators were to sit for
nine years, the twenty-first and twenty-second for six years, and the
twenty-third for three years.

In terms of parties, the result was as follows: Fianna Fdil, 10;
United Ireland Party, 6; Independent Group, 4; Labour, 2; Inde-
pendent, 1. The only Independent elected was Senator Westropp
Bennett, and his return at the top of the poll was a merited tribute to
his conduct of the Chair.

Four of the outgoing Senators had not offered themselves for re-
election: the Earl of Granard, Mr. H. S. Guinness, Mr. George
Crosbie, and Mr. F. MacGuinness. The two former had been mem-
bers since the beginning, having been nominated in 1922; both were
men of distinction, who had in every respect justified their selection.
Both had suffered through their courage and public spirit in accep-
ting nomination at that time, as their Irish residences were mined by
Mr. De Valera’s followers during the Civil War. Neither would have
had much chance of success at the 1934 election. Messrs. Crosbie and
MacGuinness both died at the end of November. Mr. Crosbie was a
man of the senatorial type, and as proprietor of the Cork Examiner
he had considerable influence in the south of Ireland. During his
three years’ membership he had made many useful contributions to
the debates. Mr. MacGuinness had been so long prevented from at-
tendance by ill health that his retirement made no difference other
than the filling of a scat which had to all intents and purposes been
vacant for six years.

• Outgoing Senator.

THE FOURTH TRIENNIAL ELECTION 429

Of the six defeated candidates, two were newcomers — Miss K.
Breen (Fianna Fail) and Mr. M. P. Connolly ( United Ireland Party)
—and four were outgoing Senators— Mrs. Costello, Sir Thomas
Esmonde, Sir John Keane, and Mr. James Moran. All four had been
members since the beginning. Mrs. Costello had probably given the
best attendance of any Senator. Sir Thomas Esmonde had been pre-
vented by failing health from taking much part in the proceedings of
late years. Mr. Moran was an extremely capable and successful man
of business of a type which was by this time hardly represented in the
Senate at all. The most serious loss, however, was undoubtedly that
of Sir John Keane. Ever since the beginning he had proved himself
to be, on the widest variety of subjects, a convincing and well-
informed parliamentarian. He had originated debates probably on
more occasions than any other member of the House, and he was as
good a debater as he was a public speaker. Both Administrations had
found in him a shrewd but not unfair critic. His great defect lay in
his unwillingness to co-operate with any group or party, and his
aloofness was the cause of his defeat. His natural affinity would have
been with the Independent Group, led by Senator Jameson, but he
did not belong to it ; and by this time the members of that group and
their friends in the Dail were too weak numerically to do more than
secure the return of their own four members who were going forward
again — Senators Bagwell, Sir Edward Bigger, Brown, and Jameson.
The case might have been different if any one of these had not been a
specially suitable candidate; but all four had, over a long period of
years, proved themselves in their different ways to be Senators of the
highest class. As it was, three of them were placed at the bottom of
the list— a sad commentary on the system of election.

The number of Senators who had been members of the Dail was
now increased by two. Senator Baxter (United Ireland Party) was
defeated at the general election of 1922, elected as a Farmer in 1923
and June 1927, and lost his seat in September 1927. He stood again
in 1932 and 1933 and was again defeated. Senator 6 M6ille (Fianna
Fail) had been a member continuously from 1918 to 1927. He had
formerly belonged to the pro-Treaty party and had been for a time
Deputy Chairman of the Dail. He had been defeated at both general
elections held in 1927.

As to the work of revision done during the Triennial Period which
now closed, one hundred non-Money Bills had been received, of
which forty-six were amended. More than five hundred amendments
were inserted, and all but forty-seven were agreed to by the Dail.

PART VI

THE FIFTH TRIENNIAL PERIOD
6th DECEMBER 1934 TO 29th MAY 1936

‘ Men must reap the things they sow,

Force from force must ever flow.'

Shelley, Lines written among the Euganean Hills.

* The division of the legislature into two separate and independent
branches is founded on such obvious principles of good policy, and is so
strongly recommended by the unequivocal language of experience, that
it has obtained the general approbation of the people of this country.
One great object of this separation of the legislature into two Houses,
acting separately, and with co-ordinate powers, is to destroy the evil
effects of sudden and strong excitement, and of precipitate measures,
springing from passion, caprice, prejudice, personal influence and party
intrigue, which have been found, by sad experience , to exercise a potent
and dangerous sway in single assemblies'

James Kent, Commentaries on American Law
(1851), vol.i, p.228.

CHAPTER XXV

THE WHEEL COMES FULL CIRCLE

The United Ireland Party — Mr. Cosgrave elected chairman — Statis-
tics of convictions by the Military Tribunal— The Bishop of Cork on
the situation— The war in Abyssinia— Mr. De Valera's attitude at
Geneva— Criticism by Opposition leaders— Resignation of Mr. Mac-
Dermot— General O' Duffy's policy— Death of King George V— Reso-
lutions in Dail and Senate — The Irish Republican Army — Murder of
Mr. Richard More O'Ferrall — Anti-Government demotistrations —
Attempted interference in the Dublin tramways dispute— Ministers
heavily guarded— Mr. Dillon on the extremists — The rival factions —
Melee at Wolfe Tone's grave — The end of An Phoblacht— - Inter-
ference with Mr. De Valera's broadcast — Murder of Vice-Admiral
Somerville— Condemnation by the Bishop of Ross— Murder of John
Egan— Michael Conway sentenced and reprieved— The Irish Republi-
can Army proclaimed an unlawful association— Imprisonment of
its Chief of Staff— The wheel comes full circle — Mr. De Valera's
regrets.

We begin by following the fortunes, or misfortunes, of the United
Ireland Party. On the 21st March 1935 Mr. Cosgrave was unani-
mously elected to the chairmanship, a position which had been
vacant since the resignation of General O’Duffy on the previous 21st
September, and Messrs. Dillon, MacDermot, Commandant Cronin
and Dr. O’Higgins were elected Vice-Chairmen. The two first-named
had been leaders of the National Centre Party before fusion, Dr.
O’Higgins had been a prominent member of the old Cosgrave party,
and Commandant Cronin was the head of that section of the Blue
Shirts which had refused to follow General O’Duffy into the wilder-
ness. Mr. Cosgrave stated on that occasion that ‘membership of the
Commonwealth was not only a guarantee for the maintenance of our
2F 433

434 THE WHEEL COMES FULL CIRCLE

distinct and individual nationality, but it offered us more — the guaran-
tee of the unity and integral solidarity of our nation and people’. 1

Throughout the summer the large farmers, who were mostly sup-
porters of the Opposition, continued to be harassed in connection
with the Land Annuities payments, and flying squads of the new
armed police pursued their activities ,in armoured cars. Some idea of
the position may be obtained from statistics officially given by the
Government in the Dail, though they cover a period prior to that
which we are considering. On the 13th February 1935 Mr. Mac-
Dermot was informed that the number of persons convicted by the
Military Tribunal from the 1st September 1933 to the 5th February
1935 was 513. Of these, according to the best information at the
Government’s disposal, 375 were members of the League of Youth
or its predecessor, the Young Ireland Association, and 138 were
members of the Irish Republican Army — a proportion of about three
to one. 2

The situation was particularly bad in County Cork, where the
farmers wrongfully took the law into their own hands and burnt the
house of one of the members of the Government party in the Ddil,
Mr. P. S. Murphy, a solicitor, and attempted to burn the house
of another, Mr. Martin Corry. Speaking in Cork on the 5th June,
the Catholic Bishop of the diocese (Most Rev. Dr. Cohalan) re-
called the land war of half a century earlier and said: ‘At that time
“suspects” galore were arrested and lodged in gaol without trial;
there were innumerable seizures ; the tribe of emergency men ap-
peared who bought at a nominal price and made a small fortune on
animals that the regular buyers would not touch. They had it all back
again. Do not think I am talking politics or for or against any
political party. I am speaking in the interests of morals. I see the
country becoming torn by political hatreds. I see class war and fac-
tion war.’ 3

The war in Abyssinia had its effect on the United Ireland Party.
On the 16th September 1935 Mr. De Valera made a striking speech
at the Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva, in which he
stated that his country stood by its obligations under the Covenant.
The speech was received with warm applause by the other delegates. 1
The Opposition at home, however, took a somewhat different view.
On the 22nd September, at Thurles, Dr. O’Higgins said that ‘if their
assistance was pledged without any settlement of their own quarrel

1 1™ 1 } Independent, 22 March 1935. = £> t j// Debates, liv, 1 759.

- Irish Independent, 6 June 1935. •> Ibid., 17 September 1935.

RESIGNATION OF MR. MACDERMOT 435
it was an opportunity lost which might never return’. 1 2 Mr. Cosgrave
spoke on similar lines in Dublin on the 4th October. ‘Ottawa was
the first lost opportunity. The latest is Geneva.’ 3

Mr. MacDermot thereupon addressed a letter to Mr. Cosgrave,
expressing his total disagreement with these sentiments and with
utterances to the same effect which had been delivered by prominent
members of the Opposition. He stated that Dr. O’Higgins’s speech
had been seen and approved by Mr. Cosgrave before it was made,
and continued: ‘The fine of argument seems to me to offend against
common sense and consistency, and to make nonsense of every-
thing we stand for. It is one that can be renewed every time that Mr.
De Valera behaves with ordinary decency in international affairs,
and when it would be more becoming for us to commend him than
to attack him.’ 3 After this, Mr. MacDermot’s resignation from the
United Ireland Party was inevitable, and it was accepted on the 10th
October. He made no attempt to split the Opposition, and sat in the
Dail as an Independent. The underlying cause of his break with his
former colleagues probably went deeper than the occasion of it, and
had its origin partly in sharp differences of temperament and partly
in a fundamental difference of outlook regarding Ireland’s attitude
to the other members of the British Commonwealth. This episode
did not end the internal troubles of the Opposition, as we shall see
presently ; but it lowered their prestige, weakened to some extent their
debating power, and left them open to attacks from the flank as well
as from the Government Front Bench.

General O’Duffy still claimed to be head of the League of Youth,
but at a meeting held on the 8th June 1935 the name of his section of
it wasaltered to theNational Corporate Party. The uniform was some-
what modified, but the blue shirt was retained. General O’Duffy deli-
vered a long address, in the course of which he said : ' We will establish
a Republic de jure for thirty-two Counties and de facto for twenty-
six. . . . The Empire or Commonwealth idea only appeals to those
who regard themselves as British colonists.’ 4 Less than nine months
previously he had been chairman of the United Ireland Party, which
placed first in its programme firm adherence to the Commonwealth.
As regards those Blue Shirts who seceded with him, their action
merely affords further proof that the tendency in Ireland is to follow
persons rather than principles. Little more was heard of the National

1 Irish Independent, 23 September 1935.

2 Ibid., 5 October 1935. 3 Irish Times, 8 October 1935.

4 Irish Independent , 10 June 1935.

436 THE WHEEL COMES FULL CIRCLE

Corporate Party, for the General and his men were soon to find a
fresh outlet for their energies on the far battlefields of Spain.

The rest of this chapter will be concerned with the activities of the
Irish Republican Army, and with the policy of the Government in
regard to that organization. But reference must first be made to the
death of His Majesty the King on the 20th January 1936. On the
following 5th February, at the first meeting of the Dail held there-
after, the President of the Executive Council moved the following
motion: ‘That Dail fiireann expresses its deep sympathy with his
Majesty King Edward VIII, with her Majesty Queen Mary and the
Royal Family, and with the people of Great Britain on the death of
his late Majesty King George V.’ There were no speeches, and the
motion was passed in silence, the members rising in their places. 1
One week later the same motion was proposed in the Senate by the
Minister for Lands (Senator Connolly), Senator Mrs. Clarke dis-
senting in a brief speech. 2 Those who are unaware of the facts should
be slow to pass judgement on this action of Mrs. Clarke, which was
quiet and dignified, and showed moral courage. She is the widow of
Thomas J. Clarke, the veteran Fenian leader, who prior to his
marriage had served sixteen years as a political prisoner in England.
He was the first signatory of the Proclamation of the Republic issued
in Easter Week, and as such, in spite of his advanced years, he was
executed by order of a court martial on the 3rd May 1916. Her
brother, Edward J. Daly, was executed on the following day. It is
these grim legacies of the recent past that forbid any facile solution
of the Irish problem.

On the 26th February, the Chairman of the Senate read to the
House a message of thanks received from King Edward VIII, ‘signed
by His Majesty’s own hand’ and transmitted through the Depart-
ment of External Affairs. 3 A similar message was communicated to
the D£il on the same date. 4

We now turn our attention to the Irish Republican Army. A dis-
pute had been in progress for a considerable time between the
tenants and the owner of the Sanderson Estate, Edgeworthstown,
County Longford, which had formerly belonged to the family of
Maria Edgeworth, the celebrated novelist. Subsequent to the tragedy
which we arc about to describe, the following facts were stated in the
D5il by Mr. MacDermot and agreed to by Mr. De Valera. On the 5th
November 1934 the local Town Tenants’ Association passed a resolu-

1 Dail Debates, lx, 43. 2 Senate Debates, xx, 1937.

Ibid., xx, 2009. * Dail Debates, lx, 1 145.

THE EDGEWORTHSTOWN MURDER 437

tion inviting the intervention of the Irish Republican Army in the
dispute, and another on the 20th November, inviting the Irish Re-
publican Army to hold a public meeting in Edgeworthstown on the
2nd December.

That meeting was duly held, and incitements to violence were
uttered in the presence of Civic Guards, who duly reported to their
superior officers, but no action was taken. Mr. De Valera said in
mitigation of these admissions that there was nothing at the time
to show that these incitements had had, or were likely to have, any
inflammatory effect on public feeling; to which General MacKeon
replied that one speaker had said that only one tree would be left
growing on the estate, and that would be for the purpose of hanging
-Mr. More O’Ferrall, the agent for the property. 1 At this time, it must
be remembered, numbers of farmers who were political opponents of
the Government were being arrested in County Cork, haled before
the Military Tribunal, and cast into gaol.

At 9 p.m. on the 9th February 1935, while Mr. More O’Ferrall was
at dinner with his family in his home at Lisard, Edgeworthstown, four
armed men entered the room and fired at Mr. More O’Ferrall and
his son at point-blank range. The bullet glanced off the father’s
cigarette case, and this probably saved his life. The son, Mr. Richard
More O’Ferrall, aged twenty-one and married, was not so fortunate.
A bullet penetrated his stomach and lodged in his spine. The mis-
creants then decamped in a motor-car. 2

Preaching in Longford Cathedral on the following Sunday, the
bishop of the diocese (Most Rev. Dr. McNamee) condemned the
outrage in unmeasured terms. ‘There is no true liberty without law.
. . . Without respect for law there can be no liberty, but only the
execrable tyranny of the gunman.’ 3

The condition of young Mr. More O’Ferrall was hopeless from the
beginning. He was removed to a Dublin nursing home, where he
died on the 20th February. At the inquest on the following day the
jury returned a verdict of * wilful murder

A week after the death, Mr. MacDermot asked Mr. De Valera
whether, in view of recent events, the Executive Council would now
consider making an Order, under Article 2 a of the Constitution,
declaring the Irish Republican Army to be an unlawful association.
Mr. De Valera replied that it was not the opinion of the Executive
Council that the necessity had arisen for the course suggested. In a

1 Bail Debates , Iv, 342, 343. a Irish Independent, 1 1 February 1935.

a Ibid., 1 8 February 1935. * Ibid., 22 February 1935.

438 THE WHEEL COMES FULL CIRCLE

supplementary question, Mr. MacDermot asked if Mr. De Valera
was aware that perhaps the greater part of the strength of such
organizations was derived from the belief that in their hearts the
majority of the Fianna Fail Party approved of their existence. Mr.
De Valera’s answer was that -such a belief, if it existed, was without
any foundation. 1

Four men were arrested in connection with the Edgeworthstown
crime and charged with murder. They were not brought before the
Military Tribunal, but before the Dublin Criminal Court, the case
being tried before the Hon. Mr. Justice Johnston and a jury. All the
accused pleaded not guilty. After lasting nearly a fortnight, the trial
ended on the 12th July 1935, the foreman of the jury intimated that
there was no possibility of agreement, the jury were discharged and
the four accused were remanded in custody. 2 A second trial began on
the 2nd December 1935, before the Hon. Mr. Justice Meredith and a
fresh jury. The case for the prosecution occupied a week, and when
it had concluded the foreman of the jury informed the judge that the
jury wished to deliver its verdict. The judge said that ‘it seemed a very
serious thing that they should come to a decision before hearing the
accused, who were to go into the box that morning, and before the
prosecution had an opportunity of cross-examining them’. He asked
if the jury had considered that aspect of the case. The foreman replied
that they had, a verdict of ‘not guilty’ was returned in regard to all
four of the prisoners, and they were released, the State entering a nolle
prosequi in regard to certain other charges. The judge stated that ‘he
would like the jury to know that he quite understood the position
they were in and that he agreed with their findings’. 3

Three years afterwards, one of the discharged prisoners, J. J. Rey-
nolds, died in remarkable circumstances. On the night of the 29th-
30th November 1938 several customs huts were wrecked along the
Northern Ireland border, by means of time-bombs concealed in suit-
cases left for deposit. On the previous evening (28th November) a
cottage near the border town of Castlefin, County Donegal, was par-
tially demolished by a terrific explosion^ caused, apparently, by the
premature explosion of a bomb of the same type. Three men in the
cottage were killed, and one of them was J. J. Reynolds. 4

The Laodicean attitude of the~Government towards the Irish Re-
publican Army seems to have had the effect of rousing the passions of

1 Dili! Debates, Iv, 1. - j r i s j, independent, 13 July 1935.

3 Ibid., 1 1 December 1935.

4 Irish Times, 29 November and 1 December 1938.

ANTI-GOVERNMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 439
the extremists without rendering them any the less dangerous. This
fact was exemplified by the events of March and April 1935. Of late
years the festival of Ireland’s patron saint (17th March) has been
made the occasion of a military display, and in this year such demon-
strations took place in various places throughout the country. The
march-past of the troops in College Green, Dublin, was marred by
ugly scenes. A large black flag was hoisted bearing the figures ‘77’,
in allusion to the seventy-seven Irregulars executed by the Govern-
ment during the Civil War of 1922-3, and pamphlets were showered
on the crowd, which referred to the Army as ‘England’s Ally’,
asserted that the Free State was as detestable in 1935 as in 1922, and
called for recruits for the Irish Republican Army. On the same day,
in Tralee, eggs were thrown at the platform from which the Minister
for Defence was taking the salute. 1

All this may seem highly unreasonable, but it was the inevitable
result of Mr. De Valera’s actions and speeches from 1922 onwards,
his refusal to support the Government when he was in opposition in
the Dail on the measures necessary to cope with the Irish Republican
Army, and his virtual toleration of that organization since he had
come into power. In particular, nothing could explain away the de-
claration which he made in 1929 that ‘those who continued on in that
organization which we have left can claim exactly the same continuity
that we claimed up to 1925 ’. The puzzled state of mind of the average
countryman is well expressed in the statement of a Kerry farmer to
Professor O’Sullivan, quoted by him in the Dail: ‘One son of mine
fought against the Black and Tans. The other was with Mr. De Valera
in 1922 in revolt against the Treaty Party. The third took seriously
Mr. De Valera’s statement as to wherein lay the real authority of the
country in 1929, and the fourth is also in gaol.’ 2

At midnight on the 2nd March there began a tram and omnibus
strike which paralysed passenger transport in and round Dublin and
lasted for seventy-six days. The hardship fell most heavily on the
working classes, and from the 20th March onwards the Government
placed Army lorries at their disposal, which conveyed them from the
suburbs to pivotal points in the City and back again. The Irish Re-
publican Army thereupon took a hand in the business. On the 23rd
March, at midnight, two Civic Guards who were patrolling Grafton
Street, Dublin, unarmed and in uniform, were shot at and wounded
by men who decamped on bicycles ; and about the same hour another

1 Irish Independent, 18 March 1935.

2 Dail Debates, Ivi, 417, 418.

440 THE WHEEL COMES FULL CIRCLE

Civic Guard was shot at close to the offices of the Irish Press. 1 * Three
days later, forty members of the Irish Republican Army and of the
Republican Congress were arrested, including Mr. Michael Price,
one of the leaders, and also the editor of An Phoblaclit.*

On the 25th March a statement issued by the Army Council of the
Irish Republican Army was published in the newspapers. It referred
to the action of the Free State Government in using the Free State
Army for, as it alleged, strike-breaking purposes, and said that this
constituted a definite challenge to all workers. ‘For these reasons,’ it
continued, ‘the Army Council hereby expresses its willingness to
assist the workers in their struggle.’ The trade union leaders very
wisely ignored this gratuitous offer, but the organ of the Govern-
ment party, the Irish Press, in a leading article entitled ‘Fishing in
Troubled Waters’, did not condemn the interference as an outrage
but seemed to reason with the extremists, rebuking them for the
‘thoughtlessness’ with which the statement was composed. 3

This tendency to blow hot and cold was exemplified a few days
later. At Eastertide it is the custom of the Republicans to hold flag
days, in which the paper emblem sold is in the form of a lily. In a
leading article of the 3rd April the Irish Press stated : ‘We understand
. . . that the proceeds of the sale of Easter lilies go, at least in part,
to the I.R.A., some of whose leaders have declared that they will
use arms against the majority’s Republican representatives.’ On the
following day the same newspaper published, on its front page, a
large, coloured advertisement for the sale of these emblems.

By ‘the majority’s Republican representatives’ was meant, presu-
mably, the Government party, and it is clear that by this time Mr.
De Valera and his fellow Ministers considered themselves to be in
grave physical danger. Easter Sunday, which fell on the 21st April,
was the next great religious festival after Saint Patrick’s Day, and it
also was made the occasion of a secular demonstration on a large
scale. Mr. De Valera travelled in state from Portobello Military
Barracks to unveil a memorial in the General Post Office commemo-
rative of the insurrection of 1916, and the precautions taken for his
safety were extraordinary. The procession did not follow the main
thoroughfares, and it was alleged that the head of the Government
was heavily guarded by military and police. 4

Mr. Dillon referred in the Dail to the protection which had to be
given to Ministers. On the 3rd May 1935 he said :

1 Irish Independent, 25 March 1935. = Ibid., 27 March 1935.

3 Irish Press, 25 March 1935. i Dciil Debates, Ivi, 307, 308.

PHYSICAL DANGER OF MINISTERS 441

‘President De Valera is at present going round this city and country
heavily guarded. There are ten or fifteen men constantly vigilant to
protect him from something. The Minister for Justice is heavily
guarded. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is heavily
guarded. . . . Do they intend to tolerate the continued existence in
this country of a body of men who they believe would murder the
President of the Executive Council if he was not adequately protected
by the forces of the State? . . .

‘They have seen turned against themselves the very self-same
methods of insolence, aggression and intimidation that they rejoiced
to see turned against us in the past. . . . The humblest citizen in this
State has as much right to go about his legitimate business as has the
President of the Executive Council, and he ought to get the same pro-
tection. But he did not. On the contrary, the blackguard and the in-
timidator were clearly shown that they had the sympathy of the
Government so long as they confined their activities to attacking
ordinary citizens who were members of our organization.’ 1

What had happened was that the Irish Republican Army still ad-
hered to the doctrines enunciated by Mr. De Valera in 1922, and that
he was being pursued by the nemesis of his past. But the extremists
now lacked the advantage, which they had enjoyed prior to 1932, of
a sympathetic Opposition in the Dail, and the repressive measures to
which they were now increasingly subjected were probably rendered
more effective by their own internal dissensions.

The trouble between the rival factions which had manifested itself
at the annual pilgrimage to Wolfe Tone’s grave in 1934 became ac-
centuated when the anniversary came round again on the 23rd June
1935. After angry exchanges between members of the Irish Republi-
can Army and members of the Republican Congress Party, carrying
banners, there was a fierce melee. Poles marking the assembly field
were pulled up, broken, and used as cudgels by the combatants.
References were made to ‘a Hitleritic section of the I.R.A.’, and Mr.
George Gilmore mentioned that he had just returned from the United
States, where Republican supporters, as at home, were split into
groups. 2

The weekly newspaper of the extremists, An Phoblacht, was now so
often suppressed that it probably seemed hardly worth while to con-
tinue its publication. Moreover, its editor was in gaol. It became at
length a mere typed sheet, and its final issue, dated the 6th July 1935,
breathed defiance to the last,
i Dai! Debates, Ivi, 389, 391.

2 Irish Independent, 24 June 1935.

442 THE WHEEL COMES FULL CIRCLE

‘Coercion is being used against Republicans to-day because they
are an embarrassment to the conspiracy for another betrayal of the
Republic, based on Mr. De Valera’s “external association” plan, in
which Britain is to receive facilities in time of war. But Mr. De
Valera can no more succeed in intimidating Republicans from de-
fence of the Republic than Churchill or Greenwood, Collins or Cos-
grave succeeded. The Republican Army will continue in its training
and organization, preparing for its task of overthrowing British
imperialism and native treason. That is our answer to Mr. De
Valera.’

At the military parade in Dublin on Saint Patrick’s Day, 1936,
there was no repetition of the scenes which had taken place on the
previous occasion. After the march-past, Mr. De Valera broadcast
from Dublin, but the wires had been tapped and he was subjected to
almost continuous interruption, which rendered his voice inaudible.
At one point a man could be heard saying, ‘Hello, comrades! For
the past half-hour we have just witnessed a very fine display of
English militarism.’ 1

And now we come to a tale of horror which will take long indeed
for us to expiate. Vice-Admiral Henry Boyle Somerville, C.M.G.,
had had a distinguished career in the Royal Navy, and on his retire-
ment in 1919 he had settled down with his wife in the little seaside
village of Castletownsend, County Cork, where he was born. In 1936
he was seventy-two years of age, in every respect a lovable and pat-
triotic old Irishman, whose chief interest was archaeology. His sister
was Miss Edith Somerville, co-authoress of Some Experiences of an
Irish R.M. and other books, which depict the life of the Irish country-
side with much insight and sympathy. Castletownsend, like other
places, was impoverished, largely through misgovernment, and the
more enterprising young fellows of the neighbourhood had been
accustomed to seek advice from the Admiral as to how they could
join the Navy. The old man, in his kindly way, had always told
them what to do and given them references. That was all.

At 9.30 p.m. on the 24th March 1936, as the Admiral was sitting
with his wife, footsteps were heard on the gravel outside. He re-
marked that it was probably some of his boys, and he went to the
hall door with a lamp in his hand. But it was four murderers who had
arrived in a motor-car. The Admiral opened the door, the lamp was
dashed out of his hand, and he was shot dead like a dog on his own
threshold and in the presence of his wife. Beside his body was left
1 Irish Independent, 18 March 1936.

MURDER OF ADMIRAL SOMERVILLE 443

a small card on which was written, ‘This English Agent sent fifty-
two Irishmen to the British Army in the last seven weeks.’ 1

This atrocious, cowardly crime sent a thrill of horror through the
country. The Catholic bishop of the diocese (Most Rev. Dr. Casey)
ordered a letter to be read in ail churches on the following Sunday,
in the course of which he said : ‘The gospel of the present-day patriot
seems to be hate, and his works murder. Let there be no mistake
about it — any man, from the actual assassin down to the man who
knowingly and wilfully played the least part of the tragedy, is guilty
of wilful murder. Every citizen is bound to give all possible assistance
to those whose duty it is to bring the miscreants to justice. It is a matter
of public safety, a question as to whether we are to live as civilized
people protected by law, or in fear of the secret murderer. Personally,
I have long been convinced that most of the present troubles of our
people are a divine judgment on past crimes. It is sad to think that
we seek a remedy by plunging still deeper into iniquity.’ 2

Though the actual assassins may have come from outside the
district, the crime could hardly have been committed without the
assistance of persons having local knowledge. But the bishop’s words
fell on deaf ears, and no one was ever apprehended for it. The
Government still refrained from declaring the Irish Republican
Army to be an unlawful association under Article 2a of the Constitu-
tion, though the Minister for Justice, in reply to a Parliamentary
Question, expressed ‘the Government’s sympathy with the relatives
of the victim of this cowardly crime and its determination to take
every possible step to bring those responsible to justice’. 3

On the night of the 26th April 1936 four men commandeered, at
the point of the revolver, a motor-car belonging to a District Justice
in County Tipperary and drove in it to Dungarvan, County Water-
ford, where they called at the house of a young man named John
Egan, aged twenty-four years. Egan was not at home, but they met
him in the street about 11 p.m., beckoned him over to the car, and
poured bullets into his body. He staggered as far as the priest’s house,
where he collapsed. The priest, hearing the firing, opened the door,
and found the unfortunate man dying in a pool of his own blood.
The motor-car was later found abandoned miles from the scene of
the tragedy. 4

At the inquest it transpired that Egan had at one time been a
member of the Irish Republican Army. The reason for his murder is

1 Irish Independent, 25 and 26 March 1936. 2 Ibid.. 30 March 1936.

3 DM Debates, Ixi, 364. 4 Irish Independent, 28 Aprs! 1936.

444 THE WHEEL COMES FULL CIRCLE

a matter of conjecture, but he may have left, or wished to leave, that
organization. Possibly he had been detailed to take part in the
assassination of Vice-Admiral Somerville and had been sentenced to
be executed for his refusal.

The following July, a man named Michael Conway was tried by the
Military Tribunal for the murder of Egan. He refused to recognize
the court or to call witnesses. On the 16th July the Tribunal held that
a prima facie case had been made out, and it adjourned the trial for
five days, in order to give the accused time to consider his position.
When the court reassembled on the 21st July the position was un-
changed, and Conway was found guilty of murder and sentenced to
be hanged on the 12th August. On the 24th July the sentence was
commuted by the Executive Council to one of penal servitude for
life. 1 After serving less than two years of this sentence, Conway was
unconditionally released on the 4th May 1938, the occasion of Dr.
Hyde’s unopposed election to the Presidency under the new Constitu-
tion. 2

It was nearly three months after the murder of Vice-Admiral
Somerville, and nearly two months after that of John Egan, that the
Government took the final drastic step. On the 18th June 1936 an
Order was made by the Executive Council declaring the Irish Re-
publican Army to be an unlawful association under Article 2 a of
the Constitution. On the following day a meeting due to be held at
Wolfe Tone’s grave on the 21st June was proclaimed under the same
Article; and Mr. Maurice Twomey, the Chief of Staff of the Irish
Republican Army, was sentenced by the Military Tribunal to three
years’ penal servitude for membership of an unlawful association.

It had thus taken nearly five years for the wheel to come full circle.
Let us briefly recall some of the events and utterances which have
already been recorded in this book. On the 14th March 1929 Mr.
De Valera said: ‘The Executive have been trying to use force, and
have been using it all the time. If they are going to meet force by
force then they cannot expect the co-operation of citizens who wish
that there should not be force.’ On the 14th October 1931, when
moving the Bill to insert a new Article 2a in the Constitution, Mr.
Cosgrave, then the head of the Government, read out a long list of
particularly atrocious and cowardly crimes attributed to members of
the Irish Republican Army. On the following day, Mr. De Valera
said: ‘These men are misguided, if you will, but they were brave
men, anyhow; let us at least have for them the decent respect that

1 Irish Independent , 17, 22, 25 July 1936. 2 Ibid., 5 May 1938.

IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY PROCLAIMED 445
we have for the brave.’ Article 2a was inserted in the Constitution in
the teeth of Mr. De Valera’s opposition. On the 17th October 1931
an Order was promulgated bringing the Article into force, and three
days later another Order was issued declaring the Irish Republican
Army to be an unlawful association. On the 9th March 1932 Mr. Dc
Valera was elected President of the Executive Council in succession
to Mr. Cosgrave. Nine days later an Order was issued suspending
Article 2a of the Constitution, and the Order which had declared the
Irish Republican Army to .be an unlawful association thereupon
lapsed.

The outrages were resumed. On the 1st August 1933 Mr. De
Valera contrasted the Blue Shirts with the Irish Republican Army,
stating that the former were ‘not a body which has any roots in the
past, not a body which can be said to have a national objective such
as the I.R.A. can be said to have’. And now, on the 18th June 1936,
after many more appalling crimes, the Irish Republican Army was
once more declared to be an unlawful association. Mr. De Valera
was back where Mr. Cosgrave had been in 1931.

Speaking in the Dail on the 23rd June 1936 Mr. De Valera said:
‘ Do I regret the policy we have adopted? If that policy has led in any
way to the murder of individuals in this State I regret it. I cannot say
whether it is that policy that has done it but, if it has, I must regret it.’ 1
This hypothetical and characteristic expression of regret was also a
fitting epitaph on his policy towards the Irish Republican Army.

1 Dail Debates, Ixiii, 112.

CHAPTER XXVI

THE END OF THE SENATE

State of parties — Inroads of the party system — The Chairman re-
elected by casting vote — A new Vice-Chairman — Three Bills dealing
with citizenship — The Constitution {Amendment No. 26) Bill and extra-
territoriality — The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill — Repeal of
British common law and statute law relating to nationality — Mr. De
Valera and cesser of status of British subject— Senator Brown's analysis
of the constitutional position — Reliance on British forbearance — The
position of Northern Ireland — * Nationals' and ‘ citizens' — The Senate's
wholesale amendment of the Bill — The Aliens Bill — Definition of 4 alien '
— Exemption provisions — Enactment of the three Bills — The Aliens
{Exemption) Order — Instances of the Senate's co-operation with the
Government — The National Loan conversion operation — The imposi-
tion of sanctions against Italy — Statesmanlike attitude of Mr. De
Valera — The Senate Abolition Bill again before the Dail—Mr. De
Valera and the function of revision — Absence of safeguards — His
speech in reply to the debate — The period of transition — Question of a
new Constitution still in doubt — The Senate's motion in regard to the
Bill— Its implications examined— Mr. De Valera fails to attend the
Senate — The reason given for his absence — The Chairman's explana-
tion — Brilliant speeches against the Bill — The motion carried — Split
in the Labour Party — The Senate's message ignored by the Dail—A
hand-to-mouth existence — Possible reasons why validity of abolition
not challenged in the courts — Judgement of the Privy Council in Moore
v. Attorney-General— Judgement of the Supreme Court in Ryan v.
Lennon — Deterioration in Senate personnel — The Senate's final meet-
ing — Disposal of the Casket — Valedictory speeches — The Senate's
work summarized— The enactment motion in the Dail — Mr. De Valera
discloses his plan for a new Constitution — His speech in reply to the
debate — The Senate ceases to exist.

At the outset of the Fifth Triennial Period, which was destined to
last for less than half its normal term, the political complexion of the

446

STATE OF PARTIES 447

Senate was as shown in the following table, the figures for the two
preceding Triennial Periods being given for purposes of comparison.

1928

1931

1934

United Ireland Party 1

Fianna Fail

Independent Group

Independents

Labour Party

Chairman

These figures emphasize in a striking manner the inroads made by
the party system on what had been in its inception a non-political
Second Chamber. The Independent Group was, as its name implies,
a group of independents, since its members were in no way regi-
mented. In 1928 this group and the unattached Independents had
numbered twenty-seven, or nearly half the House; in 1931 the figure
had dropped to nineteen, and now in 1 934 it had dropped still further
to eleven. On the other hand, Fianna Fail had grown in six years
from seven to nineteen, and the Cosgrave party showed a small in-
crease, from nineteen to twenty-two.

. The personnel of the Senate remained unchanged until its aboli-
tion. Of the original sixty Senators, twenty retained their member-
ship continuously to the end; fifteen of these came from the half
which had been elected by the Dail, and the remaining five had origi-
nally been nominated by the President of the Executive Council, a
few months before the Senate’s disappearance two vacancies occurred,
Senator Comyn being made a Circuit judge and Senator S. Robinson
being appointed to a post under the Government. These vacancies
were never filled, and the Senate ended with fifty-eight members in-
stead of sixty.

On the 12th December 1934, at the first meetingheld after the com-
mencement of the Triennial Period, there was a test of party strength
over the election of the Chairman, it being the object of the Govern-
ment party to oust Senator Westropp Bennett from the office which
he had held for the previous six years. Except for one member of the
United Ireland Party (Senator MacKean) there was a full attendance
of members, and, according to precedent, the Chair was taken by
the senior elected Senator present. General Sir William Hickie, an
Independent, who had headed the poll in 1925. The two candidates
were the outgoing Chairman, Senator Westropp Bennett, and the
1 Formerly Cumann na nGacdhcal.

448 THE END OF THE SENATE

Government candidate, Senator Comyn. Neither of the candidates
voted, and the number of Senators who took part in the division was
therefore fifty-six. Of these, twenty-eight voted each way, those for
Senator Westropp Bennett being the twenty-one members of the
United Ireland Party and the seven members of the Independent
Group, and those for Senator Comyn being the eighteen members of
the Government party, the seven Labour members, and three Inde-
pendents (Senators Sir Edward Bellingham, Linehan, and O’Neill).
It therefore devolved on Sir William Hickie, as Acting Chairman, to
give a casting vote, and he gave it in favour of Senator Westropp
Bennett, on the ground that if he had not been in the Chair he would
have voted for him. The outgoing Chairman was therefore re-elected. 1

The outgoing Vice-Chairman (Senator O’Hanlon) was not so for-
tunate. The election, which took place a week later, was also con-
tested by Senator Comyn, who defeated Senator O’Hanlon by twenty-
six votes to twenty-five. 2 On the appointment of Senator Comyn to
a judgeship, another member of the Government party (Senator
David Robinson) was appointed to the Vice-Chair (11th March
1936). The Senate had then only a short time to run, and there was
no other candidate.

Early in this Triennial Period the Senate received from the Ddil a
trilogy of Bills dealing with the law relating to citizenship. These were
the Constitution (Amendment No. 26) Bill, the Irish Nationality and
Citizenship Bill, and the Aliens Bill. All three were sponsored by Mr.
De Valera in his capacity of Minister for External Affairs.

The Constitution (Amendment No. 26) Bill was wholly uncontro-
versial. Article 3 of the Constitution provided that every person
having the qualifications of birth, parentage, or residence therein
mentioned ‘is a citizen of the Irish Free State and shall within the
limits of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State enjoy the privileges
and be subject to the obligations of such citizenship’. It had been con-
tended by the Irish delegates at the Conferences of 1926, 1929, and
1930 that the Parliament of the Irish Free State was competent to give
Irish Free State legislation extra-territorial operation, and Section 3
of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, declared and enacted ‘that the
Parliament of a Dominion has full power to make laws having extra-
territorial operation’. This Bill accordingly amended Article 3 by de-
leting from the words quoted above the phrase ‘within the limits of
the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State’.

Article 3 had also stipulated that ‘the conditions governing the
1 Senate Debates, xix, 765-70. 2 ibid., xix, 833, 834.

MR. DE VALERA ON BRITISH SUBJECTS 449
future acquisition and termination of citizenship in the Irish Free
State shall be determined by law’. The enactment of a law relating
to citizenship was therefore long overdue, and the omission was now
rectified by the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill. If this measure
had merely been drafted on the general lines of similar Acts promul-
gated by some of the other members of the Commonwealth it also
would have been uncontroversial. But Mr. De Valera continued his
policy of piecemeal republicanism by the insertion in the Bill of a
clause in the following form :

‘(1) The British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, and
the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1918, if and so far
as they respectively are or ever were in force in Saorstat Eircann, are
hereby repealed.

‘(2) The common law relating to British nationality, if and so far
as it is or ever was, either wholly or in part, in force in Saorstdt
fiireann, shall cease to have effect.

‘(3) The facts or events by reason of which a person is at any time
a natural-born citizen of Saorstat Eireann, shall not of themselves
operate to confer on such person any other citizenship or nationality.’

This clause, with its qualificatory phrases, affords a good example
of Mr. De Valera’s reluctance to face facts which he does not like.
Article 73 of the Constitution provided that the laws in force in the
Irish Free State at the date when the Constitution came into opera-
tion (6th December, 1922) should, to the extent to which they were
not inconsistent therewith, continue to be of full force and effect until
repealed. Accordingly, there never was any doubt that the common
law, and also the Acts of 1914 and 1918, were part of the substantive
law of the country.

The matter, however, went further than that. Without any man-
date from the people, Mr. De Valera was attempting to deprive Irish
men and women of their right to be regarded as British subjects. The
language which he used in the Dail left no doubt on the point. ‘We
are not able to take Acts off the British Statute Book. We arc not
able to prevent the British from calling our citizens British subjects.
. . . When this Bill becomes law it would be an impertinence if they
were to claim as citizens of their country people who arc obviously
citizens of another country. . . . Under Irish law, no Irish citizen

will be a British subject when this Act is passed I want to say

that not a single line of this Bill need be altered if a Republic were
declared in Ireland to-morrow.’ 1

1 Dail Debates , liv, 410.

450 THE END OF THE SENATE

As usual, these provocative declarations were made, not in Mr. v
De Valera’s opening speech on the Second Reading in the Dail, but
in his concluding speech. Mr. MacDermot interrupted him to express
his regret that they had not been made earlier, so that the discussion
might have taken note of them ; and he recalled the fact that, in the
debates on the Oath Bill, Mr. De Valera himself had been careful to
point out that the mere abolition of the Oath did not alter the fact
of allegiance. Mr. De Valera’s reply now was: ‘Well, it does not
matter. What I say is that the Oath of Allegiance is a different thing
altogether. That does not say that I accepted the matter of allegiance
any more than the oath.’ 1

On the 17th January 1935, in the debate in the Senate, this ques-
tion was dealt with by Senator Brown in a speech which revealed all
his familiar clarity of thought and of expression and which, because
of its importance, he read from a manuscript. He said that Mr. De
Valera’s assumption that he could get rid of the status of British
subject within the Irish Free State was due to a misconception of the
nature of that status as applied to members of the British Common-
wealth, and a misconception of the power of any one member of
the Commonwealth to discard that status without the consent of all
the other members of the Commonwealth. He referred to Mr. De
Valera’s assertion in the Dail that any benefits which come to us as
British subjects come, not from allegiance, but from ‘the fact of
association’, and from nothing else. Senator Brown traversed this
statement and asked, ‘What creates the association, for it is not in
the air?’ He answered this question by quoting the famous Balfour
Declaration contained in the Report of the Imperial Conference of
1926 and also that part of the preamble of the Statute of Westminster,
1931, which states that ‘the Crown is the symbol of the free associa-
tion of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as
they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown. . . .’ Senator
Brown asked, ‘What language could be plainer than that?’ and con-
tinued : ‘Now this new common allegiance to the King of the United
Kingdom as the sovereign head of the British Commonwealth of
Nations involves a common status which is still called “British sub-
ject” but which differs from the status of British subject when applied
to the citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The difference
would seem to be this : the citizen of the United Kingdom as a British
subject not only owes allegiance to the King as King of the United
Kingdom, but is also bound to perform all the obligations arising

1 Dail Debates, liy, 413-14.

SENATOR BROWN ON STATUS 451

from his allegiance to his own King, and to observe all the laws of his
own country. The citizens of each of the other members of the British
Commonwealth of Nations owe allegiance to the King in his capacity
as sovereign head of the Commonwealth and in no other capacity.
They have no other obligations to the King, except allegiance, and
they are not bound, while outside the United Kingdom, to obey any
law of the Parliament of Great Britain. There is surely nothing dero-
gatory to the dignity of any of the Dominions in this common status
of British subject; and it carries with it, not only the right to appeal
as a British subject for protection all over the world, but also to claim
in the United Kingdom the rights and privileges which arc open to
British subjects coming from the Dominions.’

Senator Brown referred further to the preamble of the Statute of
Westminster, which he described as ‘a solemn statement of the fact of
the agreed constitutional position of all the members of the Common-
wealth with reference to the Crown ’. He pointed out that it had been
accepted by Mr. De Valera himself as — in his own words — a ‘declara-
tion solemnly made’ when speaking in the Senate on the Bill to
abolish the Oath. He concluded ; ‘If I am right in this as a conclusion
of Constitutional Law, then section 30 of this Bill, in so far as it seeks
to put an end to the status of British subject as applicable to the
Irish Free State, is inoperative not only in the United Kingdom and
in the other Dominions, but also within the Irish Free State itself.**

This exposition of the constitutional position seems to be sound :
but in any case the fact is undeniable that by such actions as these
Mr. De Valera has placed his country in an inferior position as re-
gards Great Britain. He could ask for a clear mandate to secede from
the Commonwealth and, in the unlikely event of his receiving that
mandate, he could exercise it. Instead, membership of the Common-
wealth is continued and steps are taken which are plainly inconsis-
tent with membership. Though the truth may not be admitted,
reliance is placed on British forbearance — a course which hardly
redounds to the national dignity. Moreover, the Irish who live or
travel in the United Kingdom or abroad and who require for their
purposes the recognition of their status as British subjects arc com-
pelled expressly or by implication to repudiate the views of the head
of their Government. In the recent past many Irish people have, as
British subjects, been removed from the theatres of conflict in China
and Spain by ships of the Royal Navy, some of the officers and men
of which were also doubtless of Irish nationality. It is unlikely that
1 Senate Debates, xix, 1034-40.

452 THE END OF THE SENATE

either rescuers or rescued were unduly troubled by the fact that this
humanitarian work proceeded on an assumption which the head of
the Irish Free State Government had characterized as an imperti-
nence.

Senator Brown’s speech on this question of status was ably rein-
forced by another from Senator Milroy, but no attempt was made to
delete this particular section in committee. If such an amendment had
been proposed, it is unlikely that it would have been carried, in view
of the changed political complexion of the House. Mr. De Valera was
involved in difficulties of another kind by his desire so to frame his
Citizenship Bill that not a line of it need be changed in the event of a
republic being declared for the whole of Ireland. In the Bill as it left
the Dail persons in Northern Ireland who desired registration would
have been obliged to have their names entered in the Foreign Births
Register. Attention was drawn to this peculiarity when the Bill came
before the Senate, and provision was made for a Northern Ireland
Register, necessitating voluminous amendments.

Another difficulty was not solved because it is insoluble. Article 3
of the Constitution states that citizens of the Irish Free State, as
therein defined, shall enjoy the privileges and be subject to the obliga-
tions of citizenship. A curious legal point arises under this Article,
the territory for citizenship purposes being the area of the jurisdic-
tion of the Irish Free State at the time of the coming into operation of
the Constitution, i.e. the 6th December 1922. But on that date the
area of the Irish Free State was co-terminous with the whole of
Ireland, since Northern Ireland did not exercise the right, granted to
it under the Treaty of 1921, to opt out until the following day (the
earliest date at which it could have done so). It would seem, therefore,
that the bulk of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland are, in law,
citizens of the Irish Free State by virtue of Article 3 of the Constitu-
tion. The point is, of course, purely academic, since the- Irish Free
State Government had no power to impose any obligations on them,
and it had long ago made it clear that it was not prepared to accord
them any privileges. The very first Budget of the FiannaFdil Adminis-
tration, in 1932, had discriminated against the tobacco factory estab-
lished in Dublin two years previously by Messrs. Gallaher of Belfast,
with the result that the factory had to be closed down and three
hundred Dublin workers were thrown out of employment. 1 The
term ‘national’ had been defined in numerous statutes, such as the
Control of Imports Act, the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Act, the

1 Dail Debates, xlii, 601-12.

‘CITIZENS’, ‘NATIONALS’, AND ‘ALIENS’ 453

Moneylenders Act, and the Control of Manufactures Acts, but the
definition had always been such as to exclude an inhabitant of
Northern Ireland. This was perhaps inevitable, but it was odd that
the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill took no account whatever
of these ‘nationals’. When the Bill became law the anomaly would
exist of persons who would be ‘nationals’ for the purpose, for ex-
ample, of holding shares in companies, but who would not necessarily
be ‘citizens’, and of ‘citizens’ who, if they were on the Northern
Ireland Register, would not be ‘nationals’ for such a purpose.
Senator Douglas drew attention to what he termed an absurdity, and
suggested the introduction of a short Bill to codify and clarify the
law on the subject of ‘nationals’ as opposed to ‘citizens'. This course,
however, has not been taken.

Altogether, no less than thirty amendments, covering six pages of
the Order Paper, were inserted in the Bill by the Senate. Most of
them were to remedy defects which had passed unnoticed during the
period of six months which had elapsed between its introduction in
the Dili and its arrival in the Senate. The majority were sponsored
by the Government, but, even so, it was necessary for the Chairman
to draw Mr. De Valera’s attention to errors in some of them. The
whole experience may perhaps have helped to convince him of the
necessity for a revising Chamber.

The third Bill of the trilogy was the Aliens Bill. This followed
closely the existing British legislation, and it was complementary to
the measure which we have been discussing. The Senate inserted six
amendments in the Bill, all of which improved it and were accepted
by the DAil. The word ‘alien’ was defined to mean a person who is
not a citizen, thereby making aliens of all citizens, subjects, or
nationals of the other member Stales of the British Commonwealth
of Nations. But, by a characteristic piece of drafting, the resultant
chaos was avoided by the following clause: ‘The Executive Council
may by order exempt from the application of any provision or provi-
sions of this Act, or of any aliens order, the citizens, subjects or
nationals of any country in respect of which the Executive Council arc
satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances and in particular
the laws of such country in relation to immigrants, it is proper that
the exemption mentioned in such order should be granted.’ Power
was given to the Executive Council to revoke such an order at any
time.

The passage of the three Bills through Parliament was so regulated
that they became law at or about the same time, the Constitution

454 THE END OF THE SENATE

(Amendment No. 26) Bill on the 5th April, 1935, and the other two
on the 10th April. On the 12th April the Aliens (Exemption) Order
was promulgated by the Executive Council, exempting from the
provisions of the Aliens Act the citizens, subjects, or nationals of the
countries named in the Schedule to the Order. The countries named
in the Schedule were : the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland, and India. Make-believe
could scarcely go further, but it is significant that the citizens, subjects
or nationals of the other countries forming the British Common-
wealth are aliens under the municipal law of the Irish Free State and
are saved from the consequences of alien status only by an Executive
Order which the Government is free to revoke whenever it sees fit to
do so.

Much of the other business dealt with during the year 1935 has
already been referred to in previous chapters, consisting as it did of
several Bills which had been rejected or otherwise held up by the
Senate and were now sent up again after the expiration of the suspen-
sory period. In addition, there was a succession of measures designed
to cope with the situation arising out of the economic war ; these were
subjected to the same critical but not unfriendly scrutiny as previous
Bills of the same kind. It is pleasant to be able to record two notable
instances of the cordial co-operation extended by the Senate to the
Government at this time. In the autumn of 1935 the Minister for
Finance (Mr. MacEntee) was carrying through a large-scale conver-
sion operation in connection with the First National Loan, and the
appropriate Bill came before the Senate on the 6th November. The
Minister’s introductory statement was immediately followed by a
cordial speech from his predecessor as Minister for Finance, Senator
Blythe, who congratulated Mr. MacEntee on the success of the con-
version operation. Senator Jameson, the chairman of the Indepen-
dent Group, next added his tribute, and his recommendation of the
loan to investors was all the more valuable as coming from a
Director and former Governor of the Bank of Ireland. The Minister
acknowledged the reception given to the Bill in a graceful reply. 1

The second occasion arose over the League of Nations (Obliga-
tions of Membership) Bill, which was necessary to enable the country’s
obligations to be carried out under the League Covenant for the im-
position of sanctions against Italy. As Minister for External Affairs,
Mr. De Valera was in charge of the Bill, and he had the experience,
unusual for him, of hearing speeches from all quarters of the House in

1 Senate Debates, xx, 1085-93.

MR. DE VALERA ON LEAGUE SANCTIONS 455
support of- his proposals. With a few unimportant exceptions, the
members of the United Ireland Party declined to follow that section
of the Opposition in the Ddil which held that the Italo-Abyssinian
war ought to have been made the occasion of an attempted bargain
with Great Britain, and the Second Reading of the Bill was carried
with only one dissentient. Mr. Dc Valera made a long speech in reply
to the debate, and it was a model of what such a speech should be.
It was moderate and statesmanlike, and lacked qualifications or
parentheses. He deplored the fact that sanctions were necessary, but
maintained that they were unavoidable if obligations entered into for
the good of humanity were to be kept. He took note of the doubt
felt in some quarters regarding the sincerity of some members of the
League but said that it was a healthy doubt. ‘If the same state of
mind existed in every country that exists here, I do not think it would
be harmful, provided only that people were not led, because of that
doubt, to deny the aid which is necessary to maintain the League.
If you withhold your service, if you do not give your aid properly
and loyally, then you are doing your part to bring about the wrong
results which you fear may be brought about by the action of others.
While there may be doubts of this kind, these doubts should not lead
us to withhold the aid we should give as loyal members of the League
in order to make the League successful.’ 1 Speeches such as this con-
veyed the impression that the reputation gained by Mr. Dc Valera
through his occasional speeches at the League Assembly was fully
deserved.

The period for which the Senate Abolition Bill had been suspended
expired on the 24th November 1935, and on the following 12th
December Mr. De Valera proposed in the Ddil a motion to send the
Bill again to the Senate under Article 38a of the Constitution. Such
a momentous occasion undoubtedly demanded a long speech from
the head of the Government. By that time he had had eighteen
months within which to consider the arguments advanced by the
Chairman of the Senate, the Vice-Chairman. Senator Douglas, and
others, and this was the appropriate time to deal with them if he
was able to do so. Furthermore, it was his plain duty to take the
Ddil and the country into his confidence with regard to his future
intentions touching the legislature and the Constitution, since no-
body knew for certain whether or not he proposed to have an entirely
new Constitution and, if so, whether it would provide for one House
of Parliament or two.

1 Senate Debates, xx, 1 142 .

456 THE END OF THE SENATE

Mr. De Valera spoke for two or three minutes, his speech filling
just one column of the Debates. But his few short sentences made it
clear that a longer oration would have been superfluous. About half
of his speech consisted of the following passage: ‘There is, perhaps,
only one matter that would merit attention at this stage, and that is
that certain work which was performed in the Senate in regard to
trimming up Bills gave an opportunity, as all Deputies know, to the
Minister after the Report Stage had been passed to examine the Bill
as a whole and to consult with the draftsman as regards the full effect
of any amendments that might have been introduced. When the
Senate goes I think some provision must be made for a Stage here
in the D&il which would enable that general review of a Bill as a
whole to be undertaken and give to the Minister in charge of the Bill
an opportunity, such as was afforded him in the past in the Senate,
to make any small amendments which might be necessary to make the
Bill a completely consistent whole and an artistic whole, if you like,
from the draftsman’s point of view.’ 1 Such was his conception of the
function of revision as exercised by the Senate for thirteen years.
Even in this declaration he could not avoid a blunder. After the
Report Stage of a Bill had been passed in the Senate, no further
amendment was possible, save purely verbal amendments to rectify
errors of grammar and the like.

It will be recalled that, when the Senate Abolition Bill was before
the D&il for the first time, the Opposition had objected that safe-
guards against hasty legislation ought to be provided. Mr. De Valera
had replied that he did not expect that the Senate would vote for its
own demise, and that there was therefore plenty of time in which all
these things could be considered. On one occasion he had said that
the Norwegian system might perhaps be adopted, and on another
he had suggested that the Standing Orders of the Ddil might be
amended so as to allow of a further revision of Bills. The eighteen
months’ period had expired, but nothing had been done.

The debate on the motion served to emphasize Mr. De Valera’s
ascendancy over his party. The discussion lasted for five hours, but
no other member spoke from the Government side, except to inter-
rupt, and Mr. De Valera’s only supporter in the debate was the leader
of the Labour Party, Mr. Norton. Several brilliant speeches were
delivered against the Bill, and it was obvious that members had
profited by a study of the facts and statistics which had been given
in the Senate.

1 Ddil Debates, lix, 2553, 2554.

MR. DE VALERA KEEPS AN OPEN MIND 457

Mr. Dc Valera’s reply to the debate traversed the whole wearisome
ground again and showed, if it was sincere, that all the previous dis-
cussions had passed completely over his head. He said that ‘nobody
has brought forward on the opposite side a single argument except
this so-called appeal to the common practice and the common ex-
perience of mankind’, and asserted, without going into details, that
the origins of the bicameral system ‘were largely the result of a fear
of the people’. He again reviewed the possible methods of constituting
a Second Chamber — direct election, indirect election, nomination —
and found them all to be objectionable or impracticable. It was
Athanasius contra mundum. His views could not be disregarded as
unworthy of respect merely on the ground that they were based on
insufficient study and experience, for he informed the Dail that he
had been dealing with the question ‘much more than fourteen or
fifteen years ago . . . longer, probably, than anybody in this House’.

What was required by the country' was a lucid statement of his
intentions regarding the legislature and the Constitution. This, how-
ever, was not forthcoming. He said : ‘The Senate is to be removed.
This, for a time, at any rate, is going to be a singlc-Chambcr Legis-
lature.’ Here we have the qualificatory phrases which arc so charac-
teristic of Mr. De Valera’s utterances. Later he returned to the point,
but left the issue still in doubt. ‘During this period, as far as we arc
concerned, we are going to try what can be done by a single Chamber
and, notwithstanding these prognostications to which we have
listened to-night. I, for one, am perfectly certain that our experience
will not be one which will make us in too great anxiety to change it.
However, if anyone can indicate to us how to set up a Second
Chamber which will serve us and w ill not be a definite barrier to pro-
gress or be simply a reproduction of the conditions in this House, I
shall still keep simply an open mind.’

Mr. De Valera approached the conclusion of his speech without
having made a single reference to his project for a new Constitution,
though it must by this time have evolved from the nebulous stage,
since he had announced in Ennis so long ago as the 29th June 1935
that ‘before the present Government left office they would have an
Irish Constitution from top to bottom’. 1 Mr. MacDcrmol inquired
whether Mr. Dc Valera would appoint an outside body to consider
the question of a Second Chamber, in view of his statement that a
Joint Parliamentary' Committee, such as had been suggested by the
Senate itself, was unsuitable for the purpose. Mr. Dc Valera rcs-

1 Irish Press, J July 1935.

458 THE END OF THE SENATE

ponded by giving the following paraphrase of what he had said on
the 20th April 1934: ‘I said that, if we did come to frame a perma-
nent Constitution for this country, then certainly the body that
should examine it should be an independent body. I think he [Mr.
MacDermotj will find that I referred to this whole period as a neces-
sary period of transition. What the necessary period will be will be
different.’ The natural conclusion to be drawn from this statement
is that on the date it was made (12th December 1935) the question
whether there was to be a new Constitution or not was still undecided.

Shortly afterwards Mr. De Valera concluded his speech, the divi-
sion was taken, and the motion was passed by 76 votes to 57. 1 The
Senate had then sixty days in which to consider the Bill, that is to say,
until the 10th February 1936. There was no special urgency, since the
Senate was powerless further to delay the Bill, and on the 18th
December an order was made to take it on the 15th January, together
with a motion which had been tabled by Senator Douglas in regard
to it. This motion was as follows :

‘That consideration of the Second Stage of the Constitution
(Amendment No. 24) Bill, 1935, be postponed until a later date to
enable the following Message to be sent to the D&il : —

‘ “That inasmuch as the Senate is willing to pass the Constitution
(Amendment No. 24) Bill, 1935, provided that an amendment is in-
serted therein to the effect that the Bill shall not come into operation
until a Constitution Amendment Bill has been passed by the D&il
establishing a Second Chamber in substitution for Seanad fiireann,
the Senate proposes a Conference between members representing
both Houses of the Oireachtas for the purpose of considering an
amendment of the character suggested and such other amendments
providing for the period of transition or otherwise as may be found
desirable:

‘ “That the Senate be represented at such Conference by seven
Senators.”

‘That a Message be sent to the D&il accordingly.’

Let us examine the implications of this proposal. First, every
Senator who assented to it would assent to his own political extinc-
tion as a member of the existing Second Chamber and few would
have any feeling of assurance as regards their membership of the
new one. Accordingly, those who voted for the motion could not be
charged with having been actuated by motives of self-interest. Second,
it kept Mr. De Valera within the terms of his alleged mandate, which

1 DM Debates, Iix, 2657-68.

MR. DE VALERA’S ABSENCE 459

was for the abolition of the Senate ‘as at present constituted’, not
for the establishment of a unicameral legislature. Third, it afforded a
conclusive test of Mr. De Valera’s sincerity. As long ago as the 11th
July 1933 the Senate had proposed a Joint Committee on the con-
stitution and powers of the Second Chamber; this proposal had been
ignored and, by implication, the motion accepted the view that the
investigation should not be conducted by a Joint Committee but by
an outside body. The original proposal was not renewed, but a
conference was requested with a view to devising an amendment
which would ensure that the Senate should not be abolished until
provision for a new Second Chamber had been made by the Dail.
Mr. De Valera had said that there was to be a necessary period of
transition. This also was accepted, and the motion asked that the
conference should insert the safeguards which he had promised but
which had not so far been forthcoming.

When the House met on the 15th January the Chairman pointed
out that, as Senator Douglas’s motion took precedence of the motion
for the Second Reading of the Bill, the President of the Executive
Council was precluded from opening the debate. In the circumstances,
he suggested that Mr. De Valera might speak as soon as Senator
Douglas’s motion had been seconded, and stated that he would be
allowed to speak again before Senator Douglas rose to conclude. To
the general astonishment, Mr. De Valera was not present, however.
Not even Senator Connolly, the Minister for Lands, was in his place.
The whole debate had accordingly to proceed on the assumption that
the Government was determined on the establishment of a single
chamber without safeguards and did not intend to make any reply to
the motion before the House.

It was not until the discussion had been in progress for more than
two hours that a member of the Government party. Senator Quirkc.
gave what he stated was the real reason for Mr. De Valera’s failure to
attend. Itappearsthat the Legal Adviser to the Department of External
Affairs had entered the Chamber at the beginning of the proceedings,
and had occupied one of the scats reserved for officials attendant on
Ministers. The Assistant Clerk asked him whether tiic President was
coming, this inquiry having been made, as the Chairman subse-
quently explained, out of consideration for Mr. De Valera and aKo
for the official concerned, so that he should not be disturbed if Mr.
De Valera was momentarily expected, even though it was not strictly
in accordance with practice for him to be allowed to remain. The
Legal Adviser stated that he did not know whether Mr. De Valera

460 THE END OF THE SENATE

was coming or not, whereupon he was informed that he could not
remain where he was, but that a seat would be found for him in the
front row of the Distinguished Strangers’ Gallery. The official re-
plied, ‘Tell him to communicate that to me in the proper way.’ The
Chairman thereupon prepared and signed a minute, framed in cour-
teous language, but by this time the official had left the Chamber.
Senator Quirke, who had been in conversation with Mr. De Valera;
gave his version of the incident, stated that the action taken was <

premeditated and vindictive, and asked, ‘ Could the President, under
those conditions, come here to-day?’ He omitted, however, the vital
fact that when the Legal Adviser was asked whether Mr. De Valera
would be present he had stated that he did not know. Senator Quirke
had mentioned that Mr. De Valera was ‘in the House’, meaning
presumably either the Parliament Building or the Chamber of the
Ddil. The D&il was in session on that day, but Mr. De Valera took
no part in its proceedings except to vote in a division held long after
the Senate had adjourned ; and no explanation was ever given as to
why he was not present in the Senate when the debate opened on
Senator Douglas’s motion.

In reply to Senator Quirke, the Chairman informed the House of
what had really occurred, and also addressed a letter to the President
of the Executive Council, setting forth in polite and dignified language
the whole facts of the case and the practice hitherto observed in
regard to the officials attendant on Ministers. This letter was read to
the Senate at the beginning of the proceedings on the following day.

It ended: ‘In conclusion, I should like to add that nothing was
further from my mind than to offer any discourtesy to you or to one
of your officials. It had not occurred to me that any intention you
may have had to be present at the debate .yesterday would have been
affected by the place accorded to your Legal Adviser pending your
arrival.’ 1

The debate continued for two days, but neither Mr. De Valera
nor Senator Connolly attended on the second day, though their
presence cannot have been required in the Ddil, as it was not meet-
ing. In the absence of any spokesman of the Government, the whole
discussion had an air of unreality. It was characterized, however, by
a number of speeches of outstanding merit, including those of the
mover of the motion. The only argument from history which had
not been dealt with was that which concerned the Senate of Canada,
mentioned by Mr. De Valera in his concluding speech in the Dail,

1 Senate Debates, xx, 1 780-3, 1811-13.

SPEECHES AGAINST ABOLITION BILL 461

when he could not be answered. Senator Milroy took up this argu-
ment and replied to it in a convincing speech. Senator Sir John
Griffith, then in his eighty-eighth year, made a moving plea asainst
the Bill, stating that he believed that it would lead to the permanent
partition of Ireland. Senator Blythe gave a statesmanlike contribu-
tion, in which he spoke of the value of the Senate from the point
of view of his long experience as Minister for Finance. Senator
O’Farrell’s long speech, filled with argument and showing a robust
sense ofjealities, made it obvious that, if Ireland could only rid itself
of demagogy, he would be an outstanding figure in political life. The
misgivings of certain members of the Government party regarding
single-chamber government were voiced by Senators Dowdall and
MacEllin, the speech of the latter being one of the most thoughtful
and intelligent delivered by a Fianna Fail Senator, other than the
members who had been in the House before that party was formed.
Few speeches were made against Senator Douglas’s motion, and it is
best to extend to most of them the charity of silence.

The motion was carried by 30 votes to 20, the only feature of
interest about the division being the split in the Labour Party. Three
of the members (Senators Farren, Johnson, and O’Farrell) voted for
the motion and four others (Senators Cummins, Duffy, Foran, and
Kennedy) voted against it. 1

The appropriate resolution was then sent to the Dail in the form
of a message (16th January 1936). Parliamentary courtesy demanded
that it should be considered and a reply sent, accepting or rejecting
the proposals of the Senate. It was, however, completely ignored.
Any more humiliating position for a House of Parliament could
scarcely be conceived. The constitutional position was that at any
time on or after the 1 1th February the Dail could procure the aboli-
tion of the Senate by the mere passage of a simple resolution, the
only limitation being that such action would have to be taken within
twelve months. The 11th February came and went, and from that
time forward the Senate lived a hand-to-mouth existence. Bills were
sent up to it as usual and were dealt with in the same way as before:
and, as time went on, doubts began to arise as to the intentions of the
Government. With a view to elucidating the position, Mr. Mac-
Dermot put a Parliamentary' Question in the Ddil on the 4th March.
He asked whether it was proposed to fill the two casual vacancies
then existing, and for how long and for what purpose it was in-
tended to retain the Senate. The Vice-President’s reply left the issue
1 Senate Debates, XX, 1813 - 1936 .

462 THE END OF THE SENATE

still obscure. He said that it was not intended to fill the vacancies and
that he was ‘not at the moment in a position to give an exact answer
to the second part of the question’. 1 The Government were bound
under the Constitution to fill the first vacancy before the 11th June
1936, so that all that could be deduced from this reply was that it
was intended to abolish the Senate before that date.

We may pause here to consider some of the possible reasons why
the validity of the abolition of the Senate was never tested in the
courts. Though these are, of course, purely speculative, they are none
the less important. Mention has already been made of the statement
made by the Chairman that he had obtained counsel’s opinion from
a distinguished authority on constitutional law, who had stated his
view (a) that the amendment made to the Constitution in 1929, ex-
tending the period from eight to sixteen years within which constitu-
tional amendments might be effected by ordinary legislation without
a referendum, was invalid, and (6) that the Bill to abolish the Senate
was not an amendment of the Constitution within the meaning of the
Constitution. Since that opinion was given, there had been two
notable judicial decisions bearing on the subject.

First in order of time was the judgement of the Judicial Com-
mittee of the Privy Council in the case of Moore and Others v. the
Attorney-General of the Irish Free State and Others. The question
at issue was the validity of the Constitution (Amendment No. 22) Act,
1933, which amended Article 66 of the Constitution by terminating
the right of appeal to His Majesty in Council, that is, of course, to the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Attorney-General did
not appear before the Committee and the other respondents were not
represented. The judgement of the Committee (the Lord Chancellor
and Lord Atkin, Lord Tomlin, Lord Macmillan, and Lord Wright)
was delivered on the 6th June 1935. 2 In it the Committee stated that
'Counsel for the appellants had rightly conceded the validity of the
Constitution (Amendment No. 16) Act, that is, the extension from
eight to sixteen years. They also held that, under Section 2 of the
Statute of Westminster, 1931, the Irish Free State had power to
abolish the right of appeal to the Privy Council, and that the Con-
stitution (Amendment No. 22) Act was therefore valid. The judge-
ment contains the following significant passage: ‘It would be out of
place to criticize the legislation enacted by the Irish Free State Legis-
lature. But the Board desired to add that they were expressing no

1 Dail Debates, lx, 1538.

2 The Times, 7 June 1935.

VALIDITY OF ABOLITION BILL 463

opinion on any contractual obligation under which, regard being
had to the terms of the Treaty, the Irish Free State lay. The simplest
way of stating the situation was to say that the Statute of West-
minster gave to the Irish Free State a power under which they could
abrogate the Treaty, and that, as a matter of law, they had availed
themselves of that power.’

The importance of this judgement is far-reaching, and it has an
obvious bearing on the abolition of the Senate. It did not. of course,
bind the Supreme Court of the Irish Free State, but it made it clear
that the extension from eight to sixteen years was a valid amendment
of the Constitution, and that any argument against the validity of
the Senate Abolition Bill which was based upon the provisions of the
Treaty could not safely be relied upon.

The second judgement is that of the Supreme Court in the ease of
the State (Ryan and Others) v. Lennon and Others. 1 There were in
fact three judgements, all delivered on the 19th December 1934, and
some of the obiter dicta have already been cited in connection with
the Bill to abolish the Oath. The question which fell to be decided
was whether the insertion of Article 2a (the Military Tribunal Article)
was a valid amendment of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court
decided, Chief Justice Kennedy dissenting, (a) that the extension
from eight to sixteen years was a valid amendment, ( b ) that the power
of amendment of the Constitution (as distinct from the Constitution
Act) conferred by Article 50 was unrestricted, and (r) that the power
of amendment included the power of repeal.

This decision disposed of some, but not all. of the arguments which
could have been adduced if the validity of the Senate Abolition Bill
had been tested in the courts. But other reasons, unconnected with
law, may perhaps have decided those who might have taken the
initiative to stay their hand. Ever since the system of election had
been altered in 1928 there had been a progressive deterioration in the
personnel of the Second Chamber and a progressive increase in its
political character. Since that date, out of thirty-five newcomers to
the Senate no less than fourteen were former members of the Dai!,
most of whom imported something of a political atmosphere into the
discussions. The result of each Triennial Election could be predicted
with fair certainty, and, on the assumption that no substantial change
took place in the Dail, the composition of the Senate after the 6th
December 1937 would have been as follows :

» ;19?5: 1.R., 170-245.

464

THE END OF THE SENATE

Fianna Fdil 27

United Ireland Party 18

Independent Group 7

Labour Party 6

Independent 1

Chairman 1

6 °

Thus the Government party would have dominated the House. It
would probably have been composed of men few of whom would
have opposed Mr. De Valera on any major issue. The members who
had made the Senate tradition were growing older, and their period of
useful parliamentary work was coming to an end. In all the circum :
stances, even passionate believers in the value of such a Second
Chamber as the Senate had been might well have been excused for
taking the view that it was hardly worth while to challenge the validity
of the Abolition Bill.

At length the formal motion of enactment, which was the final
step necessary for the abolition of the Senate, was set down in the
Ddil for Tuesday, 19th May. The Chairman of the Senate imme-
diately summoned the House for that day, and the benches and
public galleries were crowded for what all present knew would be its
final meeting. The time for controversy was overpast, and those who
spoke on this last day desired only to recall the good that had been
done and to express their hope for the future. First, the Senate com-
pleted the few items of ordinary business which had remained out-
standing, so that neither the Ddil nor the Government should be
embarrassed by its omission to do so. Senator Brown thereupon
moved the following motion : ‘That it is hereby resolved that, in the
event of the existence of Seanad Eireann as a constituent House of the
Oireachtas being terminated by the enactment of the Constitution
(Amendment No. 24) Bill, 1934, the Cathaoirleach be directed to
offer the Casket presented to Seanad Eireann by the late Senator
Mrs. Alice Stopford Green, together with the contents thereof, as a
gift for preservation to the Council of the Royal Irish Academy.’
Senator Brown spoke of the great beauty of the Casket, and recalled
the fact that in November 1924 it had fallen to his lot to present it to
the Senate on behalf of Alice Stopford Green. It had been his great
privilege, he said, to be admitted to her intimate friendship. She was
an historian of great authority, imbued with an intense love of her

THE FINAL MEETING 465

own land. Her purpose had been, in her own words, that the Casket
should be placed on the table at the beginning of each meeting of the
Senate as ‘a perpetual memorial of the foundation of this body, and
a witness in later times of its increasing service to the country’.
Senator Brown then remarked sadly: ‘To-day, after less than twelve
short years, it falls to my lot to propose a resolution which provides
for the perpetual safe-keeping in other hands of this gift to a Senate
which will cease to exist within the next few days.’ He expressed the
hope, however, that within a short time the House would have a
successor, ‘truly representative of the various interests of our people,
and chosen without regard to party politics’. The motion was spoken
to by Senators Dr. Gogarty, Robinson, Douglas, and Dowdall and
was carried without dissent.

Next, Senator O’Farrcll moved a motion appreciative of the
manner in which the Clerk and Assistant Clerk of the Senate had
discharged their duties. Having paid a graceful tribute to these offi-
cials, he referred in moving terms to the impending abolition.

‘Representatives of every aspect of Irish social and economic life
have had their place in this Assembly and made a contribution to its
deliberations. I believe personally that there have been no enemies of
this land on the membership roll of this House. I believe that at heart
each member was passionately devoted to his country, proud of its
traditions, its history and its storied past. After all. different people
have different methods of working for the same ideal, and patriotic
speeches replete with fiery national sentiments are not the only means
by which one can serve his country.

‘The battle for the life of this Assembly has been fought and lost.
We must probably leave to other days and other men to say who has
taken the right course and who has taken the reverse. At all events,
I hope that every member of the Assembly voted for the course
which he or she considered the best calculated to serve the nation’s
interest. That being the ease, we. individually at least, accept the
result without complaint and without asperity, although, perhaps,
not without a little anxiety as to the future. We met originally almost
as strangers. We part to-day as colleagues and friends.’

A number of Senators associated themselves with the motion,
which was passed. Senator MacLoughlin, who had proposed the late
Lord Glenavy for the Chairmanship in 1922, then rose to express the
indebtedness of himself and his colleagues to Senator Westropp
Bennett for his ‘dignified, courteous and impartial conduct’ of the
Chair during the prcccdinc seven and a half years. It was a fittinc
2n

466 THE END OF THE SENATE

tribute to a man who had striven to be fair almost to the point of
scrupulosity, and whose only crime had been that when his House of
Parliament had stood in need of defence he had had the courage to
defend it.

The last word lay with the Chairman. ‘ ... So now we come to the
end. No recriminations may or should be allowed. All I ask leave to
do is to express the hope that we who have striven for the upbuilding
of this State will continue to uphold this State so far as we can. If I
might venture to express a hope, it would be that my voice, addressed
from this Chair for the last time, would go out over our heads to the
country at large in an appeal for respect for the law. The law is being
made by our representatives for all of us. There is no safeguard for
democracy but in the keeping of the law. I hope it will be kept. If
we, who are in the sere and yellow leaf, are approached for our
counsel, I hope we shall say, “Work for the law, by the law and with
the law.” Thus only, will democracy be preserved and strengthened

‘I thank you all. We shall remember the contacts we made here.
We shall remember our friends of different creeds, of different politics,
of different ideals, animated by one desire — the advancement of this
State. So far as God gave us light, we fulfilled our duty.’

He then declared the Senate adjourned sine die and vacated the
Chair. The Casket was removed, and the members filed slowly through
thedoors ofthe Chamber. An historic occasionhad passed into history. 1

The Senators whose membership was of long standing could cer-
tainly look back upon a record of work of which any Second
Chamber might well be proud. That record will be found given in
detail in the Appendices. In its short life of thirteen years and a half
the Senate had received 489 Bills from the D&il (other than Money
Bills) and 182 had been amended. The number of amendments
reached the enormous total of 1,831, and practically all of these had
been accepted by the other House, for the most part without modifi-
cation. The power of suspension had been exercised in only eight
cases (apart from the Senate Abolition Bill) and in two of these the
Government refrained from passing the Bills into law when the period
of suspension had expired. Even in the closing eighteen months, since
the beginning of the Fifth Triennial Period, the revision done was con-
siderable ; of the fifty-five Bills received, thirteen had been amended,
the number of amendments being 170, of which 160 were accepted by
the Dai!.

The motion of enactment was not taken in the Ddil until the 28th
1 Senate Debates, xx, 2418-36.

PLANS FOR A NEW CONSTITUTION 467

May. Mr. Dc Valera’s opening speech was longer than usual, and he
went over the ground again. ‘We must try, if we arc to be practical,
not merely to argue in generalities, not merely to say. “Oh. the
common experience of the world has been in favour of a Second
Chamber” without any analysis of the conditions in the various
places. ... In unitary States, has their origin been examined to see
how far these Second Chambers have been adopted without examina-
tion, simply because they were used in other countries?’ And again:
‘Shall I say once more that it is the duty of those who believe that a
Second Chamber is necessary, and can work, to show us how they
would constitute it, and what powers they would give it, instead of
simply saying “Oh. the experience of the world has been in favour of
two Chambers.” That is all nonsense. The experience has got to be
examined in detail.’

The only part of his speech worthy of particular attention was this
passage: ‘I hope that in the autumn we will have a measure here out-
lining a new Constitution. Whether that Constitution is to be based
on the principle of a single Chamber or two will depend upon
whether it is possible to devise a Second Chamber which can be of
value and not a danger. I have not myself— I have told the House my
own view on the matter— been able to devise any really satisfactory
Second Chamber, one that I think would be worth while putting into
the Constitution. I have had many suggestions put before me and
many of them examined and the challenge which I issued still holds.
If it can be shown how we can constitute a Senate which, practically,
will be of value then certainly we will give such a proposition most
careful consideration. If it cannot, then the Constitution will be intro-
duced with a Sinclc-Chambcr Lccislaturc. I have indicated, ns far as
I am concerned, that I have had a hankering after a Second Chamber,
which most of us had, mainly because we visualized an ideal Senate
which cannot be attained in practice and which, in my opinion, has
not so far even been approximated to.’

Speaking later in the debate, Mr. MaeDermot described the pro-
mise of a new Constitution in the autumn as an ‘interesting revela-
tion’. But it was much more than that. It supplied the clue to much
that had been formerly obscure concerning Mr. Dc Valera’s attitude
towards the Senate. In the debate on the Bill in the previous Decem-
ber. he had got no further than to say that ‘if we did come to frame
a permanent Constitution for this country’ the question of a Second
Chamber might be examined by an independent Commission. If at
that lime he had felt able to make the definite announcement that a

468 THE END OF THE SENATE

new Constitution was to be promulgated, it is hard to imagine any
convincing reason why that commission should not then have been
set up, why a period of single-chamber government was necessary,
and why he proposed to abolish the Senate altogether instead of the
Senate ‘as at present constituted’. But on the assumption that he
was ridding himself of the Senate because he knew that it would re-
ject his new quasi-republican Constitution (for which he had no
mandate from the people) his conduct becomes readily intelligible.
On this basis also it is possible to explain his refusal to consider the
Senate’s offer of a Joint Committee on the subject (July 1933), its
Bill to restore the referendum for constitutional amendments (June
1934), and, finally, its offer to consent to its own abolition provided
that another Second Chamber were substituted for it (January 1936).

The debate followed the familiar lines, statesmanlike, and some-
times brilliant, speeches being delivered by such members as Professor
O’Sullivan, Dr. Rowlette, and Messrs. Dillon, Anthony, and
McGilligan, and no fresh argument being evoked from the other
side. The speech which Mr. De Valera made in reply to the discus-
sion was the last that could be made by anybody in either House
on the subject of the Bill. He opened by saying: ‘On a previous
occasion I did not think it worth while, when concluding, to justify
the statements that I had made in the D&il on that occasion. The
suggestion is that what I had said was “torn to shreds” in the
Senate. I think that subsequent events have proved that some of the
ex cathedra statements of the Chairman of that body have been
proved to be absolutely absurd.’ Unfortunately, he did not specify
what these subsequent events were. He then dealt at considerable
length with his references to Adams and Franklin, but his explana-
tions have already been examined in a previous chapter. After some
more constitutional theory, he turned to the future and expressed
the view that it would be in the general interest to associate all parties
in working out the new Constitution ; and he accepted a suggestion
thrown out by Mr. MacDermot that a commission should be set up
to examine the question of a Second Chamber, though he could
promise nothing more than that he would consult his colleagues in
the Executive Council on the proposal. Finally, with only a few
moments available before the hour of adjournment, he could not
resist two further quotations, with the object of proving that the
whole question of one or two Chambers was not at all vital. One was,
word for word, the passage from J. S. Mill which he had already
cited in the Senate and which has already been examined in its

MR. DE VALERA HAS THE LAST WORD 469

proper perspective. The other was from Sir John Marriott; and it is
curious to recall that when, in the original debate in 1934, Professor >
O’Sullivan had apparently relied upon some of Sir John Marriott’s
material, Mr. De Valera had rebuked him for, as he alleged, ‘taking
something as an accepted fact from some conservative writer without
any attempt whatever to examine itfor himself’. 1 It was a fitting end-
ing to an inglorious but tragic episode in the history of Ireland.

The division was then taken, and the motion was carried by 74
votes to 52. 2 The Constitution (Amendment No. 24) Bill, 1934, was
signed by the Governor-General on the following day, Friday, 29th
May 1936. The Senate had ceased to exist.

1 D&il Debates, lii, 1809, 1810.

2 Ibid., 1195-1348.

PART vn

acTLOv 8’eicrl tov elvcu ra \jjrj<f>LcrpaTa uvpia aXXa pur) tov<s
vofxovs ovtol, TravTa dvdyovTes ets tov 8rjpov‘ avpfiawei yap
avTocs yivecrdai peyaXois 8lcL to tov pev Brjpov rrdvTbiv etvat.
Kvpiov Trjs 8e tov 8 r qpov 86£r)<s toutous, TTEiOerai yap to
7 rXrjdos tovtols.

{These men cause the resolutions of the people to be supreme and not
the laws, by referring all things to the people; for they owe their rise to
greatness to the fact that the people is sovereign over all things while
they are sovereign over the opinion of the people, for the multitude listens
to them)

Aristotle, Politics, IV, iv, 6.

‘ Temporary feelings and excitements , popular prejudices, an ardent
love of theory, an enthusiastic temperament, inexperience and ignor-
ance, as well as preconceived opinions, operate wonderfully to blind the
judgment and seduce the understanding

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United

States (1851), vol. I, p. 376.

1 A single legislature is calculated to unite in it all the pernicious
qualities of the different extremes of bad government. It produces
general weakness, inactivity and confusion; and these are intermixed
with sudden and violent fits of despotism, injustice and cruelty
James Wilson, (Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States),

Law Lectures, 393.

CHAPTER XXVII

THE ABDICATION AND ‘EXTERNAL
ASSOCIATION’

Death of Patrick Hogan — His statesmanlike qualities— Dissensions
in the United Ireland Party — Split in the League of Youth — The end of
the Blue Shirts — General O' Duffy in Spain — The Irish Christian Front
— Irish Republicans also in Spain — The Government adheres to non-
intervention — Return of General O' Duffy and his volunteers — Mr. De
Valera's defence policy — The Vice-President and partition — Constitu-
tional changes — The interview in the Philadelphia Record — The elec-
tion pledge in 1932 — The clearing of the ground — The abdication of
King Edward VIII — The constitutional position — Action taken in the
several overseas Dominions — The British Act — Mr. De Valera's true
alternatives — Special meeting of the Dail — The Constitution ( Amend-
ment No. 27) Bill— Elimination of the Crown — Communication with
the British Government — Criticism by the Opposition — Errors in the
Bill— The guillotine falls — The Executive Authority ( External Rela-
tions) Bill— External association' — Views of the ex-Attomey-General
— Enactment of the Bill — The electors not consulted.

On the 14th July 1936 the United Ireland Party suffered a severe
loss by the death in a motor accident of Mr. Patrick Hogan, the
former Minister for Agriculture. Of late years his attendance in the
D&il had been infrequent, partly because he was a solicitor in large
practice in the west of Ireland, but more because he was sick at heart
and thoroughly disillusioned. Hogan was a realist, who consistently
preached the value and necessity of hard work, and he disdained to
flatter the multitude. As a nation-builder upon the basis of the
Treaty his niche in history is secure.

The internal dissensions of the Opposition continued. In Sep-
tember 1934 General O’Duffy had resigned, taking with him a

473

474 ‘EXTERNAL ASSOCIATION’

number of the Blue Shirts. Those who remained still kept the title
of the League of Youth, and the new Director-General was Com-
mandant Cronin, who was one of the Vice-Chairmen of the United
Ireland Party. In October 1935 Mr. MacDermot had resigned. In
the summer of 1936 there were grave differences between Comman-
dant Cronin and his colleagues, and the trouble came to a head on
the 9th October, when, by a majority, the Standing Committee of the
party decided to terminate the system of ‘ an autonomous self-directed
political organization within another political organization’. The
Committee thereupon took over direct responsibility for the League
of Youth. 1 Commandant Cronin decided to maintain the League of
Youth as an independent organization, and so he departed, taking
with him some more of the Blue Shirts. This was apparently the end
of the Youth Movement under any leader. At all events, the blue uni-
form shirt has disappeared.

Thus the ill-starred union, on the 8th September 1933, of Mr.
Cosgrave’s party, Mr. MacDermot’s National Centre Party, and
General O’Duffy’s Blue Shirts had, after three unhappy years, re-
sulted in the disappearance for all practical purposes of two of its
three components. It is true that Mr. Cosgrave had obtained from the
National Centre Party an able and energetic lieutenant in the person
of Mr. James M. Dillon. But with this important exception there
was no new blood, and the men of influence in the Opposition were
still the ex-Ministers. The party was, in all essentials, the old Cumann
na nGaedheal (League of Gaels). Even the title of United Ireland
Party had long ago been supplanted, in ordinary use, by Fine Gael,
which means Tribe of Gaels, though the one cannot, by any stretch
of the imagination, be regarded as the equivalent of the other. New
Fine Gael was but old Cumann na nGaedheal writ small.

The outbreak of the Spanish Civil War in July 1936 had its influ-
ence on Irish affairs. General O’Duffy, who is a devout Catholic, at
once announced his intention of going to fight for the insurgents.
Numbers of Irishmen followed his lead, and, after a due interval of
preparation, they made their way to Spain, where they fought in the
front trenches, as a separate unit, under the command of General
O’Duffy. Mr. Pembroke Stephens, the war correspondent of the
Daily Telegraph (who was later killed in China) described the Irish as
the best of Franco’s foreign troops and his only genuine volunteers.

About the same time a new movement began, called the Irish
Christian Front. Its chief leader was Mr. Patrick Belton, a man of
1 Irish Independent, 10 October 1936.

IRELAND AND THE SPANISH WAR 475

energetic personality who had fought in the insurrection of Easter
Week, 1916, and had since had a varied parliamentary career. He
had been a member of Mr. De Valera’s party before it entered the
D£il, but had taken the Oath a fortnight before his leader decided to
do so. He had then sat as an Independent, and subsequently he had
had some connection with the formation of the National Centre
Party, which, as we have seen, became merged in the, Uni ted Ireland
Party. At the time of the split he had sided with General O’Duffy and
had resumed his independence. The Irish Christian Front now col-
lected very large sums of money for the provision of ambulances and
medical supplies for the insurgents, and also came to the aid of
General O’Duffy’s volunteers. Little is now heard of the movement,
presumably because its mission has been fulfilled. It is fortunate that
it did not develop into a political party, for few things could be more
disastrous for Ireland than anything in the nature of a clerical party,
having as its inevitable concomitant an anti-clerical party.

Mr. Frank Ryan and a band of Republicans, small in number
compared with General O’Duffy’s men, also travelled to the Penin-
sula, where they fought with great bravery on the Government side.
It is tragic that Irishmen should thus have been engaged on opposite
sides on a foreign field in a quarrel which was not their own.

The Irish Free State Government officially adhered to the policy
of non-intervention, and the passage into law on the 26th February
1937 of the Spanish Civil War (Non-Intervention) Act was probably
the principal factor in General O’Duffy’s decision to return home
with his volunteers. Thenceforward he could obtain no further drafts,
and the ranks were depleted by death, wounds, and sickness. It is
known, however, that the men under his leadership were a prey to
grave dissensions. Since his return home, on the 21st June 1937,
General O’Duffy has taken no part in politics.

The Government Bill for non-intervention was strenuously opposed
not only by Mr. Belton but also by the official Opposition, though, as
Mr. De Valera pointed out, Mr. Cosgrave had explicitly stated as
recently as the previous 27th November that he agreed with that
policy. The Opposition now, however, wished to make non-interven-
tion conditional on the severance of diplomatic relations with the
Valencia Government. The Bill was carried by a comfortable
majority. 1

The tense political situation in Europe during the summer of 1936
gave rise to two speeches, one by the President of the Executive
1 Ddil Debates, lxiv, 1197, and Ixv, 597-1024.

476 ‘EXTERNAL ASSOCIATION’

Council and the other by the Vice-President. It will be remembered
that, under Article 7 of the Treaty of 1921, the British were entitled,
for defence purposes, to certain facilities at Berehaven, Queenstown,
and Lough Swilly ; and also, ‘in time of war or of strained relations
with a Foreign Power, such harbour and other facilities as the
British Government may require for the purposes of such defence as
aforesaid’. Article 7 was deleted by the Anglo-Irish Agreement of
the 25th April 1938, but the extract about to be quoted is still im-
portant, as giving the point of view of the Head of the Government
at the time.

In the course of a speech in the Ddil on the 18th June 1936, Mr.
De Valera said :

‘Any Government at the present time would have seriously to
consider the question of the defences of the country. Our position is
particularly complicated. If we held the whole of our territory, there
is no doubt whatever that our attitude would be . . . that we have no
aggressive designs against any other people. We would strengthen
ourselves so as to maintain our neutrality. . . . But we are in this
position, that some of our ports are occupied, and, although we can-
not be actively committed in any way, the occupation of those ports
will give to any foreign country that may desire a pretext an oppor-
tunity of ignoring our neutrality

‘The first thing that any Government here must try to secure is
that no part of our territory will be occupied by any forces except
the forces that are immediately responsible to the Government here.
I have tried to indicate on many occasions that that is our desire,
and that it would work out to the advantage of Britain as well as to
our own advantage. I think Britain . . . wants to feel that they are
not going to be attacked through foreign States that might attempt
to use this country as a base. We are prepared, and any Government
with which I have been associated has always been prepared, to give
guarantees, so far as guarantees can be given, that that will not
happen. We are prepared to meet the necessary expense, and to make
the necessary provision to see that the full strength of this nation will
be used to resist any attempt by any foreign power to abuse our
neutrality by using any portion of our territory as a base. If that
situation were realized, then of course the Government here would
have a definite task. All the uncertain elements of the present situa-
tion would disappear. We would know what to expect ; in the main,
we would know what to provide against. But in the present uncertain
position it is very difficult to have any adequate scheme of defence,

MR. O’KELLY THREATENS ENGLAND 477

or to take any adequate measures which would safeguard us against
the risks which we have got to face, now that our territory is within
reaching distance of aeroplanes from the Continent, and that we are
liable, on account of the occupation of certain parts of our territory,
to attack by any enemy of Great Britain.’ 1 *

This appears to be an offer of neutrality provided that (as has since
happened) the three ports in question were evacuated by British
forces. But the Administration seemed to speak with two voices in
this matter, for, in a speech delivered a month later at Milford,
County Donegal, the Vice-President is reported to have said :

‘There will be no cessation of the fight until the people of Ireland
are satisfied that Irish independence and Irish unity have been
achieved and won to their satisfaction. In other words, until partition
was ended there would not be peace in Ireland, and difficulties might
come for England again.

‘It was not so many weeks ago since England found herself in
very big international difficulties, and these things would recur again,
and then England would be looking around to see where were her
friends and her enemies.

‘ It will be well for her to realize that she has Ireland to reckon with,
and that Ireland will not be there as a friend so long as England
countenances partition in this country.’ 8

We are now about to consider the changes made in the constitu-
tional position after the abolition of the Senate. Early in 1930 Mr.
De Valera was in the United States, being at that time Leader of the
Opposition in the D&il. According to an account published in the
Philadelphia Record of the 6th January 1930, he stated in an inter-
view: ‘There’s got to be an election before 1932, according to the
Constitution, and we’ll get a majority. Once we have our majority,
we’re going to make our bid for real freedom. With control of the
Assembly, we’ll be able to overthrow the Constitution. . . .’ 3 The
time of the election arrived, but this design was concealed from the
people. The Fianna Fdil Election Manifesto was written and signed
by Mr. De Valera. He asked for a mandate to abolish the parlia-
mentary Oath (which he said was not required by the Treaty) and to
retain the Land Annuities. For the rest :

‘We pledge ourselves that, if elected in a majority, we shall not
in the field of international relations exceed the mandate here asked
for without again consulting the people

1 Ddil Debates, Ixii, 2659, 2660. 8 Weekly Irish Times, 25 July 1936.

3 Quoted in the Irish Independent, 10 February 1930.

478 ‘EXTERNAL ASSOCIATION’

‘ We ask the electors not to allow themselves to be deceived by the
misrepresentations of our opponents, and we pledge ourselves not
to abuse their confidence.’ 1

On this basis Mr. De Valera obtained the confidence of the people.
Though there was another election within twelve months, no fresh
mandate was asked for in the field of international relations. The
Oath had been abolished, the Land Annuities had been retained, and
there had been no further election. The position in 1936 was, there-
fore, that the mandate was exhausted and that Mr. De Valera had
given a pledge, by which he was still bound, not to exceed it.

If Mr. De Valera was correctly reported as having said that ‘with
control of the Assembly, we’ll be able to overthrow the Constitution’
his statement was inaccurate. He would need first to abolish the
Senate. The Senate was abolished on the 29th May 1936.

Still the way was barred to some extent against hasty legislation
of a revolutionary character by Mr. De Valera’s own half-promises,
made during the progress of the Senate Abolition Bill, that the
Standing Orders of the D&il would be amended so as to provide safe-
guards. On the 3rd June 1936 the D&il Committee on Procedure
presented a Report recommending numerous amendments to the
Standing Orders as a result of the abolition of the Senate. The
Report was formally adopted two days later. The amendments were
all strictly consequential on the disappearance of the Second
Chamber. There were no safeguards. 2

On the 27th November 1936 the Dail adjourned until the 3rd
February 1937. On the morning of the 10th December 1936 His
Majesty King Edward VIII executed an Instrument of Abdication,
whereby he abdicated the throne. A constitutional crisis of the first
magnitude thus arose. Before stating the nature of the action taken
as a result of it, it is desirable to suggest the course which the situa-
tion actually demanded ; and this in turn can be understood only by
reference to constitutional law. A short exposition on the subject is
all the more desirable because it does not so far appear to have been
discussed with special reference to the Irish Free State.

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Irish Free
State, and Newfoundland had severally requested and consented to
the enactment by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of the
Statute of Westminster, 1931. In Section 1 of the Statute these
countries arc defined to be Dominions, and it is recited in the

1 Irish Independent , 11 February 1932.

2 Dull Debates, Ixii, 1871.

THE KING’S ABDICATION 479

Preamble to the Statute that ‘it would be in accord with the estab-
lished constitutional position of all the members of the Common-
wealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law
touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Styles and Titles
shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the
Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom’. The
Preamble further recites that ‘it is in accord with the established
constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the Parliament
of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions
as part of the law of that Dominion otherwise than at the request
and with the consent of that Dominion’. Preambles to Acts of
Parliament have not, of course, in general the force of law, but the
Preamble to this Statute has a peculiar sanctity in view of the origin
of the Statute itself. The second quotation is, moreover, reinforced
by Section 4 of the Statute: ‘No Act of Parliament of the United
Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend,
or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that
Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that
Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.’

It is a permissible legal view that the signature by King Edward
VIII of the Instrument of Abdication had, per se, brought about a
demise of the Crown. Such was the opinion of the Government of
South Africa, as we shall see in a moment. Had it been universally
held, no legislative action would have been necessary, as the Duke
of York would have succeeded to the Throne automatically. The
British Government, however, was of the opinion that King Edward
wore the Crown by virtue of the Act of Settlement of 1700 and could
not properly lay it aside until another Act of Parliament confirmed
his intention to do so. But before such an Act could be passed it was
necessary to consult the governments of the countries named in the
Statute of Westminster, except Newfoundland, which has tempo-
rarily lost its Dominion status. We shall now consider the action taker
by the overseas Dominions, and then return to the British Act.

Canada. At the time of the Abdication, Parliament had stood pro-
rogued to the 14th January 1937. The ‘request and consent’ referred
to in Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster were made and given
by the Executive by means of an Order-in-Council dated the 10th
December. At the beginning of the new Session a Bill confirmatory
of the British Act was introduced and passed into law on the 20th
January, though opinions were expressed in both Houses that it was
unnecessary.

480 ‘EXTERNAL ASSOCIATION’

Australia. The position of Australia was peculiar. Under Section 10
of the Statute of Westminster Section 4 did not apply to it unless it
was adopted by the Australian Parliament. The ‘request and consent’
did not, therefore, apply. But Section 9 stated that, in the application
of the Act to Australia, the ‘request and consent’ mentioned in
Section 4 should mean the request and consent of the Parliament and
Government of the Commonwealth. To meet this somewhat anoma-
lous situation, both Houses were kept in being during the constitu-
tional crisis, and on the 11th December they passed parallel resolu-
tions, giving, not the ‘request and consent’ mentioned in Section 4,
but the ‘ assent’ mentioned in the Preamble.

New Zealand. This Dominion was also excluded from the opera-
tion of Section 4 until its Parliament should adopt it. Parliament had
been prorogued from the 3rd November 1936 to the 12th August
1937. The ‘assent’ mentioned in the Preamble was given by Order-
in-Council dated the 10th December 1937.

South Africa. The situation in the Union was exceptional. In 1934
the South African Parliament had passed the Status of the Union
Act, which declared South Africa to be a sovereign, independent
State and incorporated as part of its municipal law the Preamble
and Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster. Speaking in the House
of Assembly on the 25th January 1937, the Prime Minister (General
Hertzog) stated that the British Government had suggested that the
Union Government should ‘request and consent’ under Section 4 of
the Statute. To this the Union Government could not and would not
accede, being precluded from doing so under Section 2 of the Status
of the Union Act. But it was prepared to give, and did actually give,
its ‘assent’. Furthermore, the Union Government had disagreed
from the very beginning with the view that an Act of Parliament was
necessary to give effect to the King’s Abdication. But, as other
members of the Commonwealth took a different view, the matter
was put beyond doubt by a declaratory enactment, and His Majesty
King Edward the Eighth’s Abdication Act became law on the 10th
February 1937. It fixes the date of the Accession of King George
VI as the 10th December 1936 — the date of the execution of the
Instrument of Abdication.

We are now in a position to return to the British Act, entitled His
Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act. It recites in its Preamble
that Canada had requested and consented to the enactment of the
Act. pursuant to Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster, and that
Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa had assented thereto. The

MR. DE VALERA’S ALTERNATIVES 481

reason for this distinction will now be appreciated. The Irish Free
State was nowhere mentioned, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin),
speaking on the Second Reading, stated that he had received a
message from Mr. De Valera saying that he proposed to call his
Parliament together to pass legislation to deal with the situation. 1
We may perhaps assume from this that the British Government had
asked for a ‘request and consent’ under Section 4 and had been re-
fused. The British Act became law on the 11th December, so that
the Accession of King George VI dates from that day so far as the
British Empire, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are concerned.

This review of the constitutional position, and of the decisions taken
in the light of it, makes certain matters clear that might otherwise be
obscure or in doubt. In the first place, there was obviously no need
whatever for the D&il to be summoned in the middle of the recess for.
the purpose of enacting emergency legislation to deal with the situa-
tion. The only Dominion Parliament which met during the crisis was
that of Australia, and this course was necessitated by its peculiar
position under the Statute of Westminster. The Irish Free State was
in exactly the same position as Canada. Both came under Section 4
of the Statute and there was no, complicating factor in either case,
such as the Status of the Union Act in South Africa.

In the second place, we can see what Mr. De Valera’s true alter-
natives were, due allowance being made for his Republican tenden-
cies and regard being had to his solemn personal pledge that he would
not exceed his mandate without again consulting the people.

1. To inform the British Government that, in the view of his
Government, the signature of the Instrument of Abdication had
caused a demise of the Crown; that the succession had already
passed to the Duke of York and his heirs ; that an Act of Parliament
was therefore unnecessary; and that the Irish Free State would not
be a party to such an Act.

2. To have given the ‘request and consent’ mentioned in Section 4
of the Statute of Westminster, and to have declined further legisla-
tion.

3. To have given the bare ‘assent’ referred to in the Preamble.

The political advantage to Mr. De Valera of any of these courses

would have been that the crisis could have been surmounted by a
mere act of the Executive. When the D&il reassembled in the normal
course on the 3rd February the affair would have blown over, and
it is unlikely that the Opposition would have attempted to make

1 House of Commons Debates , cccxviii, 2203.

482 ‘EXTERNAL ASSOCIATION’

political capital out of the painful circumstances surrounding the
Abdication. It is right, however, to point out that the third course
might not have been regarded as practicable, since the ‘assent’ re-
quired by the Preamble is that of the Parliament. But this fact did not
prove to be a barrier in the case of New Zealand.

What actually happened was very different. It is, indeed, likely to
be cited in future text-books on political science as a classic instance
of the exercise of power by a single chamber. On Thursday, 10th
December, the date of Abdication, Members of the Ddil were sum-
moned by telegram to meet at 3 p.m. on the following day. Professor
O’Sullivan, who lives in Dublin, stated that he received the summons
at 7 p.m. and that on the following morning he received by post the
two Bills to be dealt with. Members residing at a distance from the
capital would have had to leave home before the Bills arrived, and
many doubtless saw them for the first time when they entered the
Chamber. Members who happened to be away from home might not
have received the summons at all. The authority to print a Bill is
usually taken to be conferred by the Ddil when leave is given to
introduce it. No such leave had been given in respect of these two
Bills. Professor O’Sullivan protested that ‘the great bulk of the
people have no knowledge whatsoever of what we are called together
for here to-day’. One of Mr. De Valera’s followers interjected, ‘They
will know it to-morrow’ — that is to say, when the Bills had been
passed into law. 1

The business for the first day, Friday, 11th December, was the
formal introduction of the two Bills, followed by a guillotine motion
of a most drastic character, whereby all Stages of the first Bill would
have to be concluded before 1 1 p.m. the same night, and all Stages
of the second Bill would have to be completed between 10.30 a.m.
and 10.30 p.m. on the following day, Saturday, 12th December. The
Parliamentary Secretary to the President, who moved the guillotine,
did not say a single word in justification of it, and the motion was
carried, under the closure, by 71 votes to 55.

The first Bill was entitled the Constitution (Amendment No. 27)
Bill, 1936, and its long title was: ‘An Act to effect certain amend-
ments of the Constitution in relation to the executive authority and
power and in relation to the performance of certain executive
functions.’ Its general purpose was to remove the King from the
Constitution and to abolish the Representative of the Crown.
Article 1 of the Constitution was left untouched: ‘The Irish Free

1 Ddil Debates, Ixiv, 1238-40.

KING REMOVED FROM CONSTITUTION 483

State is a co-equal member of the Community of Nations forming
the British Commonwealth of Nations.’ Otherwise the King dis-
appeared, and the Governor-General was stripped of his functions.
The Royal Assent to Bills was at an end, and in future they were to
become law on the signature of the Chairman of the D&il. This
official was also to summon and dissolve Parliament on the direc-
tion of the Executive Council. The successive changes in Article 12
illustrate the constitutional progress. In its original form this Article
stated that the legislature ‘shall consist of the King and two Houses’.
After the abolition of the Senate, it was to ‘consist of the King and
one House’. Now it was to ‘ consist of one House’.

For external purposes, however, some use was found for the
Crown, which was referred to anonymously and in defective English
in the following proviso added to Article 51 : ‘Provided that it shall
be lawful for the Executive Council, to the extent and subject to any
conditions which may be determined by law to avail, for the purposes
of the appointment of diplomatic and consular agents and the con-
clusion of international agreements of any organ used as a constitu-
tional organ for the like purposes by any of the nations referred to
in Article 1 of this Constitution.’

It will be apparent that these proposals have no logical connection
whatever with the Abdication and that there was accordingly no
urgency about them from a constitutional standpoint. But they be-
came law in eight hours. Speaking on the First Stage of the Bill, Mr.
De Valera referred to his new Constitution, which was then being
drafted, and said that he had indicated quite clearly to the British
Government that the King would not appear in it. He added: ‘Of
course, it was only indicated informally, and as a matter of courtesy
because, again, they have no right to interfere.’ The following extract
from the Official Report will illustrate the fog which surrounded the
Government Benches during the debate. It is offered without further
comment.

‘Mr. Cosgrave: May I ask the President, Sir, if the Dail will get
the correspondence to which reference has been made by the Presi-
dent in connection with the informal notification between all the
members of the British Commonwealth?

‘The President : I did not say that it was done informally.

‘Mr. Cosgrave : Was it done by correspondence?

‘The President : No, I do not think so.

‘Professor O’Sullivan : The President does not know?

‘The President : I do not know that it was done by correspondence.

484 ‘EXTERNAL ASSOCIATION’

It was probably word of mouth; by the High Commissioner,
possibly.

‘ General Mulcahy : Was it done at all ?

‘The President : I think so.’ 1

The discussion on the measure, was, as usual, thoroughly one-
sided. Brilliant searchlights were thrown on the Bill and its implica-
tions by such masters of their subject as Professor O’Sullivan, Mr.
McGilligan, and Messrs. Costello, K.C., Lavery, K.C., and Fitz-
gerald-Kenney, K.C. ; but they failed to penetrate the fog on the
other side. Mr. MacDermot approached the matter from a different
angle. Referring to the new proviso to Article 51, in which the King
is alluded to as an organ, he said; ‘How do we know that this Bill is
not going to subject this House and country to a resounding humilia-
tion? How would it be if the new King said — as I would if I were in
his shoes — “Go and be damned ; I am not interested in acting as your
deputy for certain purposes while I am not recognized as King of
the country”?’ 2 If His Majesty had adopted this attitude, the whole
scheme of legislation would, of course, have collapsed.

As usual, the Government’s haste gave rise to blunders. Following
constitutional forms, Article 51 declared the executive authority to
be vested in the King, exercisable by the Governor-General on the
advice of the Executive Council. The references to the King and the
Governor-General were now to be deleted, and the executive autho-
rity was to be exercised by the Executive Council. It was nowhere
stated, however, in whom such authority was vested. Mr. McGilligan
raised the point, and the Attorney-General (Mr. James Geoghegan,
K.C.) gave it as his opinion that the executive authority would be
vested in the people. 3

Shortly before the guillotine was due to fall, Mr. Lavery adverted
to the provision that the Ddil should in future be summoned and
dissolved by the Chairman of the Ddil. He pointed out that, when
the Dail had been dissolved, there would be no Chairman of the
Dail, and, therefore, no person to summon it. The disclosure of this
ludicrous error seems to have caused perturbation on the Govern-
ment Front Bench, and the Attorney-General asked leave to move
an amendment. But the Opposition objected, as it was now 10.30
p.m., the hour fixed by the Government for the closure. The objec-
tion was upheld by the Chair and the Bill went through unamended,
the Final Stage being passed by 79 votes to 54. 4

1 Dail Debates, Ixiv, 1233-5.
a Ibid., Ixiv, 1378.

2 Ibid., Ixiv, 1263.

* Ibid., Ixiv, 1379-84.

‘CO-OPERATION’ OR ‘ASSOCIATION’ 485

The second measure was the Executive Authority (External Rela-
' tions) Bill. This was begun at 10.30 a.m. on the next day (Saturday,
12th December), and it was finished less than seven hours later. The
long title was : ‘An Act to make provision, in accordance with the
Constitution, for the exercise of the executive authority of Saorstdt
Eireann in relation to certain matters in the domain of external rela-
tions and for other matters connected with the matters aforesaid.’
Thus, reference to the Abdication of King Edward was avoided in
both the long and the short titles. Indeed, the Instrument of Abdica-
tion itself was not to be found in the original Bill, but was added as
an afterthought, in the form of a Schedule, by means of a Govern-
ment amendment inserted in Committee. The main section of the Bill
had also to be redrafted. Sections 1 and 2 of the Bill in its final form
provided that the State’s diplomatic and consular representatives
should be appointed, and its international agreements concluded, on
the authority of the Executive Council. Section 3, which is the main
section, is in two parts. The first sub-section reads as follows : ‘It is
hereby declared and enacted that, so long as Saorstdt Eireann is
associated with the following nations, that is to say, Australia,
Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand and South Africa, and so long
as the king recognized by those nations as the symbol of their co-
operation continues to act on behalf of each of those nations (on the
advice of the several Governments thereof) for the purposes of the
appointment of diplomatic and consular representatives and the
conclusion of international agreements, the king so recognized may,
and is hereby authorized to, act on behalf of Saorstdt Eireann for the
like purposes as and when advised by the Executive Council so to do.’
This sub-section was riddled by the arguments of Messrs. Costello
and McGilligan, who had both taken an active part in the Imperial
Conferences which led up to the Statute of Westminster. Referring
to the phrase ‘the king recognized by those nations as the symbol
of their co-operation’, Mr. Costello proved conclusively in a long
and cogent argument that it is true neither in law nor in fact. It is
as well here to recall the definition of the nations of the Common-
wealth adopted in the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1926,
to which the Irish Free State was a party. ‘They are autonomous
communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way
subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external
affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and
freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of
Nations.’ Mr. Costello moved an amendment to delete the words

486 ‘EXTERNAL ASSOCIATION’

‘their co-operation’ and to substitute the words ‘the free association
of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations’. Mr. De
Valera was prepared to accept ‘association’ for ‘co-operation’, but
he hesitated at the word ‘free’, though, by the terms of the sub-
section, it applied to the association of the other members and not
to that of the Irish Free State. After a good deal of fencing, he said,
‘I am not certain that in all cases it is free.’ 1 The amendment was
rejected.

The second sub-section of Section 3 reads : ‘Immediately upon the
passing of this Act, the instrument of abdication executed by His
Majesty King Edward the Eighth on the 10th day of December, 1936
(a copy whereof is set out in the Schedule to this Act) shall have effect
according to the tenor thereof and His said Majesty shall, for the
purposes of the foregoing sub-section of this section and all other (if
any) purposes, cease to be king, and the king for those purposes shall
henceforth be the person who, if His said Majesty had died on the
10th day of December, 1936, unmarried, would for the time being
be his successor under the law of Saorst&t Lireann.’ Thus His
Majesty King George VI was again referred to anonymously. In
Friday’s Bill he was an organ ; in Saturday’s, a person.

Section 4 of the Bill gave the short title, and the Schedule, as
already stated, consisted of the Instrument of Abdication.

The Final Stage was passed by 81 votes to 5, the Opposition voting
for it and the minority consisting of Labour members. The Bill was
enacted on the day on which it was passed, 12th December 1936 ;
and, by its terms, King Edward then ceased to be king, not, as in
the United Kingdom, on the previous day.

The Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936, is in no
way affected by Mr. De Valera’s new Constitution, and so it is still
the law. From the statutory point of view, it is the sole remaining
link with the Crown and with the British Commonwealth of Nations ;
and, as it is merely an ordinary Act of Parliament, it can be repealed
at any time. Speaking in Dublin on the 23rd April 1939, Mr. De
Valera hinted that it may be repealed ‘if it became clear that that
was not the way to secure unity’. 2

The passage of these two Bills in the space of slightly over twenty-
four hours fully justified the allegations made against Mr. De Valera,
at the time the Senate Abolition Bill was before Parliament, that his
real aim was a personal dictatorship to be exercised through his
mechanical majority in the single chamber. His ‘external association’
1 D6U Debates, Ixiv, 1487. 2 j ris /, Times, 24 April 1939.

THE ELECTORS NOT CONSULTED 487
policy was put into force, not only in direct violation of his pledge
to the electors, but so quickly that public opinion could not have
time to express itself. Henceforward, the institution of monarchy,
which has existed in Ireland since the dawn of history, is, like an
embrocation, to be used for external application only — ‘Not to be
taken internally.’

As Mr. De Valera’s new Constitution was so nearly ready, it may
be asked why he did not wait until its introduction before effecting
the change. The answer is that the Abdication provided him with an
opportunity of putting ‘external association’ into force without con-
sulting the people. Otherwise, the issue at the plebiscite would have
been the old Constitution based on the Treaty versus the new Con-
stitution based on ‘external association’. His action ensured that
‘external association’ would not be a factor at the plebiscite; but,
eves so, Ms sew Constitution secured only a small majozity, as we
shall see presently.

CHAPTER XXVIII

THE END OF THE IRISH FREE STATE

Mr. De Valera's attitude to the Coronation — No representation at the
Imperial Conference — The Executi ve Powers ( Consequential Provisions)
Bill — The Governor-Generalship abolished — Compensation of the last
holder of the office — Introduction of the Draft Constitution — The Second
Chamber Commission — Its personnel and Report — Mr. De Valera
discloses his reason for abolishing the Senate — Unique features of the
Draft Constitution — Character of the State not designated — The posi-
tion of Northern Ireland — The President — Mr. Padraic Colum's criti-
cism — The Council of State — The Parliament — Composition and
powers of the Second Chamber — The referendum — * External associa-
tion' — Power to establish Special Courts — Declarations of a homiletic
character — Religion — Divorce — Mr. MacDermot and recognition of
membership of the British Commonwealth — Attitude of the Opposition
— Method of enacting the new Constitution — Submission to a plebiscite
— Mr. De Valera's reasons for the procedure — The sovereignty of the
people — Reason for no Constituent Assembly — Reason for plebiscite
on same day as general election — The general election of July 1937 —
Analysis of the result — Virtual elimination of Independents — Result of
the plebiscite — Slender majority for the new Constitution — The plebis-
cite considered on an all-Ireland basis — The end of the Irish Free State.

1 here was considerable curiosity as to whether the Government
would be officially represented at the Coronation (12th May 1937)
and at the Imperial Conference which followed it. On the 24th
February 1937 Mr. De Valera informed the Ddil that he had been
kept informed of the changes to be made in the Coronation Oath
in view of the altered status of the Dominions. He added: ‘I had
made it clear that our attitude towards the whole Coronation cere-
mony must be one of detachment and protest while our country was

488

ATTITUDE TO CORONATION 489

partitioned and while the Coronation Service implied discrimination
— as it still does — against the religion to which the majority of our
people belong.’ 1 A few days later it was announced from the Vatican
that the Pope was to send a Papal Legate to London for the occasion.
The Coronation ceremonies were in the charge of the Earl Marshal
(His Grace the Duke of Norfolk), who is, of course, a Catholic. The
Prime Minister of Australia (the late Rt. Hon. J. A. Lyons, M.P.), a
Catholic of Irish descent, was present in Westminster Abbey, as were
hundreds of other Catholics from all over the British Commonwealth,
including a large number from Ireland.

Between the 17th February and the 8th April Mr. James M. Dillon
made four unsuccessful attempts, by means of Parliamentary Ques-
tions, to elicit the Government’s attitude towards the Imperial
Conference. On the 27th April his pertinacity was rewarded. At first,
Mr. De Valera merely referred him to the previous answer. Mr.
Dillon then asked if he was to understand that the Executive Council
had not yet made up its mind whether it was to be represented or not.
Mr. De Valera replied : ‘I think the Deputy is going a little too far in
that. The question is that the necessity for a decision would only
arise in case the circumstances were such that the interests of the
State would be served by going there.’ After this typically cryptic
reply had been repeated with variations, Mr. Dillon inquired further,
‘So we will not be represented at the Imperial Conference?’ Mr. De
Valera replied, ‘No’, and Mr. Dillon said, ‘Now we have it at last.
We very much regret that decision.’ 2

The Republican extremists warned the film renters that the
Coronation film was not to be shown, and it was not shown. Enter-
prising cinema proprietors in Belfast and Newry advertised special
performances in the Dublin newspapers, the Great Northern Rail-
way Company ran special trains, and thousands of persons crossed
the border into Northern Ireland for the purpose of seeing the film.

The Constitution Amendment Act passed on the day after the
King’s Abdication had not, apparently, completely got rid of the
Governor-General; and so, on the 11th May 1937, the Executive
Powers (Consequential Provisions) Bill was introduced. By this
measure his surviving powers and functions were distributed and the
Governor-General’s Salary and Establishment Act, 1923, was re-
pealed. But the proposal which attracted most public attention was
the provision made for the last holder of the office, Mr. Daniel
Buckley. He had been appointed on the 26th November 1932, after
1 Dai! Debates, lxv, 869. 2 Ibid., lxvi, 1635, 1636.

490 THE END OF THE IRISH FREE STATE

the virtual dismissal of Mr. James McNeill, so that his normal term
of five years had almost expired. Under Article 60 of the Constitu-
tion, the salary of the Representative of the Crown was to be the.
same as that of the Governor-General of Australia, that is, £10,000
a year. This salary had been paid to Mr. Buckley’s predecessors, but
they had lived in the Viceregal Lodge, had entertained on a large
scale, and had discharged all the customary duties of their high
office. Mr. Buckley had been accommodated in a house in the
suburbs, and, on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister for
Justice revealed the fact that he had been in receipt of £2,000 a year
and an allowance. So far as the general public is aware, the only
substantial service he rendered in return for this large stipend was to
affix his signature to Bills. Mr. De Valera said that he ‘voluntarily
surrendered’ the £10,000 ‘without any bond or anything of that
sort’. 1 Such a bond would, of course, have been ultra vires the
Constitution, and therefore unenforceable. The Bill now conferred
on Mr. Buckley, within a few months of his normal term, a gratuity
of £2,000, and a pension of £500 a year for life. In spite of protests, it
became law on the 8th June 1937.

The new Draft Constitution was formally introduced in the Ddil
on the 10th March 1937. As it contained provisions for a Senate, it
is necessary to state in this place that on the 9th June 1936 (less than
a fortnight after the enactment of the Senate Abolition Bill) a Com-
mission was set up by the Executive Council with the following terms
of reference: ‘To consider and make recommendations as to what
should be the functions and powers of the Second Chamber of the
Legislature in the event of its being decided to make provision in the
Constitution for such Second Chamber and, further, to consider and
make recommendations as to how in that event such Chamber should
be constituted as regards number of members, their qualifications,
method of selection and period of office, and what allowances (if
any) should be made to such members.’ The personnel of the Com-
mission consisted of the Chief Justice (chairman), the Attorney-
General (vice-chairman), seven members of the Ddil, five cx-
Senators, four university professors, two Civil Servants, and three
others — twenty-three members in all. The Parliamentary Opposition
was not represented, as it had refused to co-operate on the ground
that there was no undertaking that a Second Chamber would, in fact,
be established.

The Commission was requested to report by the 1st October, and
1 Dai! Debates, lxvii, 591-664.

PUBLICATION OF CONSTITUTION 491

it did so, the Report being subsequently published. The time allowed '
was obviously insufficient for a due consideration of the issues in-
volved, and no witnesses were called. The Report is a curious docu-
ment. It consists of (1) the ‘Report of the Commission’, which is in
the nature of a narrative and is signed by the chairman, though he
disagreed with most of its recommendations ; (2) five separate reser-
vations; (3) an additional Report embodying the chairman’s own
views; (4) a Minority Report; (5) reservations to the Minority
Report ; (6) a Report from one member.

An extraordinary feature about this Commission was the appoint-
ment to it of two serving Civil Servants — or rather three, for ex-
Senator Connolly, who was a member of it, bad been made Chairman
of the Commissioners of Public Works. The other two were respec-
tively the Secretary to the Executive Council and the Legal Adviser
to the Department of External Affairs. The proper function of such
Civil Servants is to advise the Government, and it was disturbing to
find them nominated to a Commission which was to report on the
character of the Legislature under which they might have to work.
The fact that these three particular officials were appointed to the
Commission was, however, taken as an indication that there was to
be a Senate under the new Constitution. Either Mr. De Valera had
rapidly changed his mind on the subject of Second Chambers or he
had merely abolished the Senate to suit his own purposes. On the
2nd December 1937, long after those purposes had been effected, he
admitted in a singularly candid passage that the latter alternative
was correct. He said: ‘In the constitutional circumstances in which
we were, with the national objectives which we had in front of us, I
wanted to get rid of a Second House, and particularly I wanted to get
rid of the previous Second House whilst a certain piece of constitu-
tional work was-being donerFortunately for the country, it was not
there at the time that a certain piece of important constitutional work
had to be done.’ 1

The Draft Constitution was published, in Irish and English, on the
30th April 1937. To emphasize the patriotic character of the docu-
ment, the Irish text was printed in Gaelic type, which had long ago
been superseded by Roman type so far as parliamentary publications
were concerned. A detailed analysis of the new Draft does not fall
within the scope of this book, but it is of such importance that some
reference to its main provisions is called for. In at least three respects
it is unique among the Constitutions of the world :

1 Dail Debates, lxix, 1608.

492 THE END OF THE IRISH FREE STATE

1. The character of the State — whether monarchy or republic— is
not designated. Article 5 states that ‘Ireland is a sovereign, indepen-
dent, democratic State’, but this does not answer the question. South
Africa is described in similar terms in the Status of the Union Act,
1934 ; and South Africa is a monarchy.

2. Virtually no reference is made to external affairs.

3. The language of the basic text (Irish) is one that the vast majo-
rity of members of Parliament, Bench and Bar, and of the population
generally, can neither read, write, speak, nor understand.

So far as nomenclature goes, the Irish Free State is abolished, and
it is declared that ‘the name of the State is Eire, or, in the English
language, Ireland’. Further, ‘the national territory consists of the
whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas’. ‘Eire’ is
the name for Ireland in the Irish language. It is so often mispro-
nounced that it is as well to mention that it rhymes, approximately,
with ‘Sarah’.

The de facto position with regard to Northern Ireland is recog-
nized by Article 3, which reads : ‘Pending the re-integration of the
national territory, and without prejudice to the right of the Parlia-
ment and Government established by this Constitution to exercise
jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws enacted by that
Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application as the
laws of Saorstdt Eireann and the like extra-territorial effect.’

There is a President of Ireland, popularly elected by all citizens
eligible to vote at D6il elections. His term of office is seven years,
and he is eligible once for re-election. His powers and functions are
largely, but not wholly, formal. He is to take precedence over all other
persons in the State, but is not designated as its head. The following
views of Mr. Pddraic Colum, published in the American Common-
weal \ l are interesting as being those of a distinguished Irish man
of letters, unconnected with politics, who resides outside his own
country.

‘President De Valera has been careful not to name the Head of
the State — and a State has to have a Head. Neither the President nor
the Prime Minister is so designated. . . . This evasiveness on funda-
mental issues, this deliberate veiling of essential situations, is bound
to create a bad moral atmosphere in the country. The Irish people
cither sec through it or make up their minds that they do not want to
see through it, and in either case the result is morally bad : it makes
for either cynicism or pretence. After all, it should be the main pur-
1 Issue of 16 July 1937, pp. 297-9.

THE NEW SENATE 493

pose of legislators to make a people upright and self-reliant; a
Constitution that does other than this has the gravest possible
defect.’

A Council of State is set up ‘to aid and counsel the President’. It
is very roughly analogous to the Privy Council.

The Parliament is to consist of the President and two Houses. The
provisions with regard to the D&il are not substantially altered. As
to the new Senate, when speaking in the D&il on the enactment
motion which abolished the old Senate (28th May 1936) Mr. De
Valera referred to the system of nomination and said that a nomi-
nated Senate could not be a real safeguard, and that it was open to
attack from many directions. As to a Senate based on vocational
representation, he said, quite truly: ‘I have found, first of all, that
we are not organized in that sense here in a way that would enable us
satisfactorily to choose such a Second Chamber; and, secondly, that
I certainly could not fulfil the second part of the election pledge we
gave if I were to attempt to form one. I do not think you can get
really satisfactory vocational representation with a number as small
as the number that I had in mind.’ 1 The part of the election pledge
alluded to is that in which he promised to reduce considerably the
number of members of the Senate. The new Senate is to be composed
of sixty members, the same number as the old. Of these, eleven are
to be nominated by the Prime Minister; three each are to be elected
by the two universities ; and the remaining forty-three are to be
elected on a basis of vocational representation. All the Senators are
to go out of office together, a general election for the Senate taking
place not later than ninety days after a dissolution of the Ddil. The
method of election is to be determined by law.

The power of the Senate over Money Bills is roughly the same as
■before, the period of twenty-one days being retained. The definition
of a Money Bill is also retained, save for slight changes in the
phraseology, the reason for which is not obvious. In regard to Bills
other than Money Bills, the Senate has a suspensory power of only
ninety days, and machinery is provided for abridging this period in
cases of urgency or emergency. But a Bill in respect of which the
period has been abridged shall remain in force for no longer than
ninety days unless both Houses agree to extend the date of its expiry.
Bills are to be signed and promulgated by the President.

Provision is made for a referendum, and a distinction is drawn
between Constitution Amendment Bills and other Bills. Bills of the
1 Mil Debates, lxii, 1197, 1200, 1201.

494 THE END OF THE IRISH FREE STATE

former class must be submitted to a referendum, and are held to have
been approved by the people if a majority of the votes cast is in
favour. (The Constitution may, however, be amended by ordinary
legislation, without a referendum, for a period of three years reckoned
from the date on which the first President enters upon his office.) In
regard to every other Bill, a majority of the Senate and one-third
of the Ddil may present a joint petition to the President not to sign
and promulgate it, on the ground that it contains a proposal of
such national importance that the will of the people ought to be
ascertained. The President, after consultation with the Council of
State, may accede or decline. If he accedes, either (a) a referendum
takes place, and the Bill is held to have been vetoed if a majority of
the votes cast is against it and if the votes cast against it amount to
not less than one-third of the total voters on the register : or ( b ) the
D&il may pass a resolution, after a dissolution and reassembly within
eighteen months of the petition, approving the Bill, in which case it
must be signed and promulgated. The effect of alternative (a) might
well prove extraordinary. If, at the time of a referendum, the number
on the register was, for example, the same as at the 1937 plebiscite,
viz., 1,775,055, then the Bill would be deemed to pass if the voting
was, For, 200: Against, 590,000, because the number against would
be less than one-third of the total voters on the register.

The provisions regarding the Executive are not greatly altered,
except that the term ‘Government’ replaces ‘Executive Council’ in
the English text. Two Ministers may be members of the Senate. In
the section of the Constitution devoted to the Government there is
reproduced, in substance, the provision made at the time of the
Abdication for the use of an organ for external affairs ; but by this
time it had become much more vague. The organ had then been
designated as that used by the British Commonwealth of Nations.
The new provision is: ‘For the purpose of the exercise of any
executive function of the State in or in connection with its external
relations, the Government may to such extent and subject to such
conditions, if any, as may be determined by law, avail of or adopt
any organ, instrument or method of procedure used or adopted for
the like purpose by the members of any group or league of nations
with which the State is or becomes associated for the purpose of
international co-operation in matters of common concern.’

The provisions with regard to the Courts of Justice call for no
particular comment, except to say that ‘special courts’ may be estab-
lished to deal with cases for which the ordinary courts are inadequate.

HOMILETIC DECLARATIONS 495

This is a belated recognition by Mr. De Valera of the necessity for
some such tribunal as that set up by Article 2a of the old Constitu-
tion.

Large sections of the -new Constitution consist of declarations of a
homiletic character concerning personal rights, the family, education,
private property, religion, and directive principles of social policy.
Many of these are so vague that they could not possibly be impleaded
in the courts, and it is difficult to see what purpose they serve in such
a document. Dr. Rowlette criticized the Constitution from this aspect
as follows: ‘A Constitution is essentially a legal document and
should be declaratory of the structure of the State. . . . Above every-
thing else, it should be declaratory of the rights of the individual
citizen. This draft document that we are considering contains phrases
directive rather than declaratory. It consists largely of a moral
homily in which various directions are given as to the lines on which
the State should work in future. Where general principles appear,
one finds that almost every one of them is qualified by following
phrases, so that when attempting to interpret them one does not
know what meaning is conveyed. That occurs over and over again.
Instead of a clear statement as to the structure of the State and the
right of individual citizens, we have a vague, indeterminate series of
statements and sentences which to a great extent are opposed to each
other and are almost contradictory.’ 1

In the section on religion, the following paragraph occurs: ‘The
State recognizes the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic
and Roman Church as the guardian of the Faith professed by the
great majority of the citizens.’ But, read in conjunction with the rest
of the section, this appears to amount to no more than a statement
of the fact, universally known, that all but a small percentage of
people living in the area heretofore known as the Irish Free State are
Catholics. For the section goes on to declare that the State also
recognizes the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church, the
Methodist Church, the Religious Society of Friends, the Jewish
Congregations, ‘and the other religious denominations existing in
Ireland at the date of the coming into operation of this Constitu-
tion’. The Catholic Church obtains no ‘special position’, as freedom
of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are
guaranteed, and the State guarantees not to endow any religion.
Further, no disabilities may be imposed nor discrimination made on
account of religious belief or status.

1 Ddil Debates, Ivin, 386, 387.

496 THE END OF THE IRISH FREE STATE

In these general sections of the Constitution, the only other provi-
sion which calls for notice here is the following :

‘No law shall be enacted providing for the grant of a dissolution
of marriage.

‘No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law
of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law
for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government
and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of
contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the life-
time of the other party tb the marriage so dissolved.’

This prohibition of divorce and re-marriage within the jurisdiction
gives constitutional recognition to what has been the de facto posi-
tion since the beginning.

The new Constitution was not the result of the labours of jurists
and other experts. So far as is known, its author is Mr. De Valera
himself, aided, no doubt, by Civil Servants and others whose duty
it is to advise him and his Government. As it embodies his own
policy of ‘external association’, he can hardly have been surprised by
the fact that his appeal to the Opposition for co-operation in its
enactment fell on deaf ears. The Labour Party also was hostile to
and suspicious of a number of its provisions. The net result was that
Mr. De Valera was on the defensive most of the time that the Draft
was passing through the Ddil ; and the general apathy of the single
chamber is shown by the fact that on several occasions the proceed-
ings were interrupted for want of a quorum.

Of the numerous amendments offered on the Committee Stage one
is specially noteworthy. Mr. MacDermot proposed a new article as
follows : ‘The Irish nation hereby declares its free and equal member-
ship as a sovereign State of the British Commonwealth of Nations,
and so long as such membership continues recognizes King George
VI and each of his successors at law as King of Ireland.’ Mr. Mac-
Dermot developed his arguments in a reasoned speech, and reinforced
them by quotations showing the attitude to the Crown of Wolfe
Tone, Thomas Davis, and Parnell. He also said that it was only by
making the Crown an integral part of the Constitution that a begin-
ning could be made with reconciliation with the North of Ireland.
The amendment received no support from the United Ireland Party,
and it was defeated by 56 votes to 3, the minority consisting of Mr.
MacDermot himself, Professor Alton (Independent, Dublin Univer-
sity). and Mr. John Good (Independent, County Dublin). 1 Subse-

1 Ddil Debates, Ixvii, 953-68.

. METHOD OF ENACTMENT 497

quently, Mr. James Dillon, who is a vice-chairman of the United
Ireland Party, gave his opinion on the question: ‘Personally, I take
the view that the last place you ought to put a definition of our
constitutional position vis-a-vis the Commonwealth is in the Con-
stitution, and I want to say why. I want to make it the easiest thing
in the world to declare a republic in this country. I believe that, the
easier you make it to declare a republic, the more certain it is that
our people will not do it.’ 1 From this time forward, very large
numbers of people took the view that there was now no substantial
difference between the two principal political parties in their attitude
towards the Crown.

The method adopted for the enactment of the new Constitution is
of very great constitutional importance. The existing Constitution
was, of course, the fundamental law of the Irish Free State, and
Article 50 provided the method whereby it could be changed. As
amended by successive Constitution (Amendment) Acts, this Article
read as follows:

‘Amendments of this Constitution may be made by the Oireachtas
but no such amendment, passed by Ddil Firearm after the expiration
of a period of sixteen years from the date of the coming into operation
of this Constitution shall become law [i.e. after the 5th December
1938] unless the same shall, after it has been passed by Dail Fireann,
have been submitted to a Referendum of the people, and unless a
majority of the voters on the register shall have recorded their votes
on such Referendum and either the votes of a majority of the voters
on the register, or two-thirds of the votes recorded, shall have been
cast in favour of such amendment. Any such amendment may be
made within the said period of sixteen years by way of ordinary
legislation.’

On the 17th May 1934, nearly three years before the new Draft
Constitution was published, Mr. De Valera had suggested another
possible method. ‘From a legal point of view, in so far as I can pre-
sume to understand the matter, I do not know where a Constituent
Assembly derives its authority from except directly from the people.
If, for instance, we wanted in a short period to get this Constitution
revised and a new Constitution secured, the natural way of doing
it would be to get an Assembly for that purpose elected directly
by the people. It is clear that the Parliament of the time would
arrange for the type of Assembly and how it was to be elected,
and I- cannot see how, if it so chose, you could prevent any Parlia-
1 Dail Debates, Ixviii, 367, 368.

498 THE END OF THE IRISH FREE STATE

ment from constituting itself, if need be, into a Constituent
Assembly.’ 1

None of these courses was followed. The new Constitution did not
profess to operate as an amendment of the old under Article 50; a
Constituent Assembly was not elected, and no resolution was passed
by the Ddil constituting itself a Constituent Assembly. The Draft
Constitution was treated in all essential respects like an ordinary Bill.
Between the beginning of the Second Reading on the 11th May and
the completion of the Final Stage on the 14th June it occupied part
of eleven days, ordinary legislation and other parliamentary business
being proceeded with at the same time. At the end of the debate on the
Final Stage, instead of the usual question, 4 That the Bill do now pass
the form of the motion was ‘That the Draft Constitution, 1937, be
and is hereby approved by D&il Eireann ’ — that is, approved for sub-
mission to the people.

Twelve days previously (2nd June 1937) a Plebiscite (Draft Con-
stitution) Act was passed. This provided that the Draft Constitution
should be submitted to a plebiscite, and that the plebiscite should be
held on the same day as the next general election for the D£il. The
corresponding provision in the Draft Constitution is contained in
Article 62, which reads as follows :

‘This Constitution shall come into operation

‘i. on the day following the expiration of a period of one hundred
and eighty days after its approval by the people signified by a ma-
jority of the votes cast at a plebiscite thereon held in accordance with
law, or

‘ii. on such earlier day after such approval as may be fixed by a
resolution of Dail Eireann elected at the general election the polling
for which shall have taken place on the same day as the said plebis-
cite.’

Thus, all that was required for the enactment of the Constitution
was a bare majority of those voting, irrespective of the proportion
which the number voting bore to the total on the register ; and provi-
sion was made for the eventuality of Mr. De Valera’s winning the
plebiscite but losing the general election. He said: ‘If the new D&il
passes a resolution that this Constitution is to come into operation,
then before six months it comes into operation. If the new D5il
neglect their duty, even whether they like it or not, it becomes law
within six months from the date of the plebiscite.’ 2

Under Article 48, as from the date of the coming into operation of
1 Dail Debates, lii, 1219. 2 Ibid., Ixvii, 74.

REASONS FOR THE PROCEDURE 499

the new Constitution, the old Constitution was repealed, as was also
the Constitution Act of 1922, ‘in so far as that Act or any provision
thereof is then in force*. This Act consisted of the Act proper and
two Schedules, one of which was the Constitution and the other was
the Treaty.

We shall now give, in Mr. De Valera’s own words, the reasons for
the procedure adopted. Mr. J. A. Costello, K.C., the former Attorney-
General, had given it as his opinion that the new Constitution could
legally operate only as an amendment of the existing Constitution
within the meaning of Article 50 thereof. Mr. De Valera said that he
was mistaken. ‘Deputy Costello would be telling us that he would
have a grand time going to the Supreme Court asking them to say
that the Constitution was ultra vires. But neither Deputy Costello nor
anybody else can tell us that this Draft Constitution is ultra vires for
it is the people themselves who will enact it. They are the authority.
The people have power to determine from time to time who their
rulers will be and also what their Government will be. The Govern-
ment can go back to the people and the people can effect that revolu-
tion and change their form as long as it is referred to themselves. In
this case they will be doing that and I would like to see the lawyers
who would stand in their way. This Draft Constitution, if passed at
all, is going to be passed by the sovereign people who are above the
lawyers and above the Government and all others. . . . Therefore it is
that in this case we are not bothering very much about what the
lawyers think or say about this Constitution. I know, however, that
the lawyers would have a lot to say about it if it were brought in as
an amendment of the old Constitution.’ 1 And again: ‘The Courts
here have expressed certain opinions in dealing with certain cases
and made certain suggestions as to their views about the powers here •
to pass Acts in relation to the terms of the Treaty. We were not going
to risk a Constitution like this, even though it was the right way to
judge a Constitution like this, being enacted here and being operated
with such possible views held by the Courts. What we are doing is,
we are going back to the sovereign authority, to the Irish people, or
that section of the Irish people whom we can consult on the matter.
We -go back to them and ask them to enact it. It is they who will
enact it and, as I said in my introductory speech, when they enact it
there is a provision that any judge, or anybody else, who is not pre-
pared to function under it can resign and get out.’ 2

The reference to certain cases, certain suggestions, and certain opin-
1 Dad Debates, lxvii, 74, 75. 2 Ibid., ixvii, 41 6.

500 THE END OF THE IRISH FREE STATE

ions is doubtless an allusion to the unanimous view of the Supreme
Court, expressed in the judgement in the State (Ryan and Others) v.
Lennon and Others, that the Oireachtas had no power to amend or
repeal the Constitution Act. It is pertinent here to recall that Mr. De
Valera assured the electors that the Oath was not required by the
Treaty; that the Bill to abolish the Oath was drafted in such a way as
to forestall, if possible, a decision of the courts on this question; and
that the Attorney-General stated that this was ‘necessary in order to
prevent any judicial misrepresentation of the position’.

On the question why a Constituent Assembly was not set up to
frame the Constitution (as he had said three years earlier was ‘the
natural way’) Mr. De Valera said: ‘Were we to have a new Con-
stituent Assembly called? I claim that such a Constituent Assembly
could not possibly do the work if the Ddil set itself out to do it
properly. If it did not set itself out to do it properly, then the blame
is not on these benches but on the opposite benches’ 1 [for withhold-
ing their co-operation]. A Constituent Assembly elected ad hoc by
the people might conceivably have contained a majority against the
Government, in which case the whole plan would have miscarried.

The only other matter which calls for explanation is why the
plebiscite should be held on the same day as the general election. Mr.
De Valera would have preferred it otherwise. He said : ‘ From my own
point of view, I should prefer to see this Constitution voted on at a
time when there is no election — voted on at a time in which the
matter, probably, would get more consideration and, if I might say
so, a less biassed consideration — but this being the first time our
people will have a referendum, and there being the danger that it
might be difficult to get them out to vote in a referendum on the first
occasion, it is about the best method of doing it. There is always just
that danger in a referendum at the start.’ 2 The method adopted also
had the advantage that two campaigns could be conducted at the
same time.

On the day on which the Draft Constitution was finally approved
(Monday, 14th June) the Ddil was dissolved, and the general election
and the plebiscite were held on the 1st July. One of the points stressed
by the Government Party in favour of the new instrument was that it
made provision for a Second Chamber. ‘It [the Constitution] estab-
lishes the BICAMERAL SYSTEM of Parliamentary Government in
this country upon a firm basis. ... If you are not against a Second
House or Senate, can you find any good reason why you should
1 DM Debates, lxviii, 414. = Ibid., Ixviii, 287, 288.

RESULT OF THE GENERAL ELECTION 501
vote against the Constitution? Then you must vote for the Constitu-
tion!’ 1

The annual pilgrimage of the Republicans to Wolfe Tone’s grave
occurred during the campaign (Sunday, 20th June). In 1936 this meet-
ing had been proclaimed. This year the demonstrators were not inter-
fered with. 2 On the previous day the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister for Local Government (Dr. Ward) made a speech in his con-
stituency, in the course of which he is reported to have said: ‘If Fianna
Fail were going to be impeded in national progress there was only one
other method left. If an Imperialist Party was elected in this country
it would not be long until there was bloodshed, because there were
still men in Ireland who would never allow the British to dominate
the country.’ 3

The result of the general election was as shown below. The party
strength at the dissolution is given in brackets, on the basis of a full
House. There were, however, three vacant seats at the time.

Party

Candidates

Members

nominated

elected

Fianna Fdil (De Valera)

100

69 (80)

United Ireland Party (Cosgrave)

48 (53)

Labour

13 (8)

Independents

8(12)

254

138 (153)

The, comparatively large number of Independent candidates is par-
tially explained by the reduction of the total membership from 153
to 138. Room could not be found for all the former members, and
some of those who were not officially adopted went forward as
Independents, most of them being unsuccessful. Among other de-
feated Independents were Commandant Cronin, formerly of the
United Ireland Party, and Mr. Frank Ryan, the Republican leader
who had fought in Spain. Mr. Frank MacDermot did not offer him-
self for re-election. The Administration was virtually unchanged. _
The large increase in the number of three-member constituencies
had its expected result in the virtual elimination of members who
were not tied to party. Only eight Independents were successful:
Mr. R. S. Anthony (Independent Labour, Cork City); Mr. T. J.

1 Fianna Fdil advertisement in the Irish Times, I July 1937.

' 2 Irish Times, 21 June 1937. 3 Sunday Independent, 20 June 1937.

502 THE END OF THE IRISH FREE STATE

Burke (Farmer, Clare); Rt. Hon. Alfred Byrne, Lord Mayor of
Dublin (Dublin, North-East); Mr. James Larkin, the veteran Labour
leader (Dublin, North-East); Mr. Alfred Byrne, junior (Dublin,
North-West); Mr. J. J. Cole (Cavan); Dr. J. Hannigan (Dublin,
South) ; and Major S. Myles (Donegal, East). Mr. Cole and Major
Myles come from the border counties, and might be described as
ex-Unionists. The latter headed the poll in his constituency, but Mr.
Cole only just managed to secure election. It is significant that, of
the seven constituencies which returned Independents, all except one
have more than three members. The exception is North-East Dublin,
where the Lord Mayor’s deserved popularity gave him thousands
more votes than any other candidate ; but General Richard Mulcahy
was defeated in the same constituency, and so the Opposition Front
Bench lost one of its ablest and most experienced members.

The result of the general election was a great disappointment for the
Government party. It had now only sixty-nine members out of 138,
or exactly half the House ; excluding the Chairman, it was in a mino-
rity of one. The United Ireland Party, with forty-eight seats, had more
or less maintained its position ; and the principal gainer was Labour,
which, in a smaller Ddil, had actually increased its representation
from 8 to 13. This result was probably due in large measure to the
fact that the Labour Party’s opportunist policy of pseudo-republican-
ism attracted extremist support. The total first preferences were:

For the Government Party 603,172

Against the Government Party 720, 892 1

Mr. De Valera was thus back to the 1932 position, when his Govern-
ment was able to carry on only on Labour sufferance.

Nor can Mr. De Valera have regarded the result of the plebiscite
with considerable satisfaction. The official figures are :

For the Constitution 685,105

Against the Constitution 526, 945 2

Majority in favour 158,160

Under Article 62 of the instrument only a bare majority of those
actually voting was required, and so the new Constitution had been
enacted by the people. But if the conditions laid down in Article 50
of the old Constitution had been incorporated in Article 62 it would
have been decisively rejected. Article 50 required, for a valid amend-
ment of the Constitution, either a majority of the total voters on the
1 Irish Times, 7 July 1937. 2 Iris Oijigiiiil (Official Gazette), 16 July 1937.

RESULT OF THE PLEBISCITE 503

register or two-thirds of the votes recorded. The total number of
voters on the register was 1,775,05s. 1 A simple calculation shows that
the votes in favour of the new Constitution fell short by 202,423 of a
majority of the total votes on the register; and they fell short by
122,928 of two-thirds of the votes actually recorded. In terms of
percentages, and to the nearest integer, 39 per cent voted for the new
Constitution, 30 per cent voted against it, and 31 per cent did not
vote at all. Five of the thirty-four constituencies showed adverse
majorities, viz. Dublin County, Dublin Townships, West Cork, Sligo,
and Wicklow.

As the Constitution is so framed as to apply to the whole of Ireland
when partition has been ended, it is of some interest to state the result
of the plebiscite on an all-Ireland basis, without, however, drawing
any conclusions on the subject. The plebiscite did not, of course,
apply to Northern Ireland, but on the register which came into opera-
tion on the 15th December 1937 (which is sufficiently close to the date
of the plebiscite for purposes of computation) the electors in that area
numbered 822,860. 2 The total electorate for the entire country was
therefore 2,597,915; and, on the figures given above, the following
are the percentages:

per cent

For the Constitution 26

Against the Constitution 20

Eligible to vote but did not note 22

Ineligible to vote 32

100

No steps were taken by the new Ddil to bring the new Constitution
into operation by means of a resolution passed under Article 62 ; and
so, under the same Article, it came into existence automatically one
hundred and eighty days after its approval by the people, that is to
say, on Wednesday, 29th December 1937. After a short life of fifteen
years, the Irish Free State was at an end.

^Report of the Department of Local Government and Public Health, 1937-8,
** 2 Ulster Year Book, 1938, p. 308.

PAS?

VT&

ctlA pTB^ s

o^s^cv^ s

tjPJECTS

CHAPTER XXIX

ATTENDANCE AND PAYMENT OF MEMBERS

Constitutional provisions for payment of members — Resolution of
the Provisional Parliament — Resolutions of Senate and D&il — The
Oireachtas ( Payment of Members) Act , 1923 — The Amending Acts —
Proposals to reduce remuneration of Chairman and Vice-Chairmatx of
Senate — Report of Select Committee — New scales adopted — Salaries
of members of the Government — Professor Thrift's Bill to reduce re -
muneration of Senators — Joint Committee set up with extended terms
of reference — The Committee's Report — No action taken — Rejection
of Professor Thrift's Bill by the Dail — Attendance of members of the
two Houses compared— Their different responsibilities — Average num-
ber of sitting days of Senate and duration of sitting — Average atten-
dance — Indifferent individual records— Abortive proposals of Joint
Committee — Improvement after 1928 accompanied by deterioration in
personnel — Connection of payment of members with bad attendance —
Problem of the impecunious candidate — Inappropriateness of compari-
son with overseas Dominions — Non-payment no barrier to Labour
Senators — The door closed to no legitimate interest.

As the question of attendance is intimately connected with that of
the payment of members, it is appropriate that these two subjects
should be dealt with in the same chapter. For the sake of complete-
ness, it will be desirable to treat also of the payment of members of
the D&il and to make some reference to the remuneration of the
Chairman and Vice-Chairman of each House and of members of the
Executive Council.

Under Article 21 of the Constitution it was the duty and privilege
of each House to prescribe, inter alia, the remuneration of the Chair-
man and Vice-Chairman of that House; and it was provided by
Article 23 that the Oireachtas should make provision for the pay-

507

508 ATTENDANCE AND PAYMENT OF MEMBERS

ment of its members, and might, in addition, provide them with free
travelling facilities in any part of Ireland.

Prior to the coming into operation of the Constitution, the Provi-
sional Parliament, on the 20th September 1922, had passed a resolu-
tion adopting the report of a Committee which recommended that
the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the Dail should be paid
salaries of £1,700 and £1,000 a year respectively, that members of the
Dail (other than Ministers and the Chairman and Deputy Chairman)
should be paid an allowance of £30 a month towards expenses, and
that free first-class railway travelling facilities should be provided for
all members between Dublin and their respective constituencies. The
salaries to be paid to Ministers were stipulated in the same resolution.
On the 10th January 1923 the Senate resolved that the remuneration
payable to members of the Senate, and to the Chairman and Vice-
Chairman of that House, should be the same as that fixed in the case
of the Dail, and also that first-class railway travel should be provided
for Senators between Dublin and their homes. On the 24th January
1923 the Dail passed a resolution in similar terms to that passed by
the Provisional Parliament and referred to above.

These resolutions of Dail and Senate were given statutory effect,
so far as allowances and travelling facilities were concerned, by the
Oireachtas (Payment of Members) Act, 1923, passed on the 18th June
1923. The salary paid to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of each
House, to the President of the Executive Council, and to Ministers
was to be deemed to be inclusive of the allowance, and the allowance
and travelling facilities were to commence from the day on which the
Oath was taken under Article 17 of the Constitution. The remunera-
tion of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of each House depended
on the original resolutions and did not need confirmation by statute;
the amounts were included in the annual Estimates and the money was
duly appropriated by successive Appropriation Acts. Under the
Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, the remuneration of the Presi-
dent was fixed at ‘an annual sum by way of salary not exceeding
£2,500’ and the maxima of other Ministers, and of Parliamentary
Secretaries set up under the Act were fixed in similar terms at £1,700
and £1,200 respectively.

The original Act of 1923 was amended by three other Oireachtas
(Payment of Members) Acts, passed respectively in 1925, 1928, and
1933. Doubts having arisen as to whether the allowance of £30 a
month was liable to income-tax and super-tax, the Act of 1925 was
passed to give statutory effect to the original intention that it was not

REMUNERATION OF CHAIRMAN 509

to be so liable. The Act of 1928 extended the travelling facilities to
travel by omnibus or other public conveyance, and provided for the
' repayment of expenses incurred by members using their own motor-
cars. The Act of 1933 removed the provision about the taking of the
Oath, which had been deleted from the Constitution by an Act passed
earlier in the same year.

As the duties of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Senate
proved in practice to be much less onerous than those of the corres-
ponding officers of the D£il, there was little to be said in favour of
continuing to remunerate them at the same rates, namely £1,700 and
£1,000 a year respectively. But it is invidious to reduce the salary of
an office during the tenure of the holder of it, and the one post could
hardly be dealt with without the other. Hence during the six years’
Chairmanship of Lord Glenavy no attempt at revision was made. At
the beginning of the Third Triennial Period, however, and before
the election of Lord Glenavy’s successor, Senator Jameson sought to
have the question referred to a committee of the Senate; but he was
unable to have the motion debated before the elections had been held.
These resulted in the appointment of Senator T. W. Westropp Bennett
as Chairman and of Senator P. W. Kenny as Vice-Chairman. Senator
Jameson’s motion was then discussed, but the opinion of the majority
was unfavourable to it, and, on a division, it was adjourned sine die. 1

The question was not allowed to remain in that indeterminate
condition. Six days later Senator Joseph Connolly, the leader of the
De Valera party in the Senate, tabled a motion to fix the remunera-
tion of the Chairman at £750 a year and of the Vice-Chairman at
£400 a year. The debate upon the motion took place on the 20th
February 1929, but the reductions proposed were so drastic that it
commanded no support, and an amendment was carried referring
the matter to a Select Committee. 2 The Report of this Committee,
which was unanimous, stated that the Committee had taken into
account the duties of the two offices and had considered the salaries
paid to the Speakers or Chairmen in the parliaments of the overseas
members of the Commonwealth ; and it recommended that the re-
muneration of the Chairman of the Senate should be fixed for the
future at £1,200 a year and of the Vice-Chairman at £750 a year, 8 .
The Report was adopted by the Senate, without debate, on the 9th
May 1929, and the new rates were made operative as from the 1st
June following.

1 Senate Debates, xi, 54-90. 2 Ibid., xi, 294-31 0,

3 Reports of Committees, vol. iii, p. 873.

510 ATTENDANCE AND PAYMENT OF MEMBERS

Before we proceed to consider the question of allowances to
Senators it is desirable to complete our reference to the remuneration
of officers of the other House and of members of the Government.
Shortly after Mr. De Valera’s advent to power in 1932 the salaries
of the following officers were voluntarily reduced to the extent shown
(the previous figures are given in brackets) :

President of the Executive Council (£2,500) £1,500
Ministers (£1,700) £1,000
Parliamentary Secretaries (£1,200) £900
Attorney-General (£2,500) £1,500
Chairman of the Ddil (£1,700) £1,000
Deputy Chairman of the Ddil (£1,000) £750.

The only Senator affected by this self-denying ordinance was Senator
Connolly, who held ministerial office under Mr. De Valera until the
House was abolished. The reductions were by no means so substantial
as they appear on paper, as the reduced salaries were all free of
income-tax. The position so remained until the Estimates for the
financial year 1937-8, when the former amounts were restored; and
these are the amounts stipulated by the Ministerial and Parliamentary
Offices Act, 1938, passed on the 22nd December 1938. The same Act
fixes the salaries of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the new
Senate at £1,200 and £750 respectively, as before. In addition, provi-
sion is made for the payment of annual allowances of £800 and £500
to the leaders of the two principal opposition parties in the Ddil.

An attempt was made, on the ground of economy, to reduce
Senators’ allowances from £360 to £200 a year by means of a Bill
entitled the Oireachtas (Payment of Members) (No. 2) Bill, 1928, in-
troduced on the 30th November 1928 by Professor Thrift, acting on
behalf of the Independent Group in the Ddil. After a tedious Second
Reading debate which lasted over three days, an amendment was
carried postponing consideration until the question should have been
considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses, or for three
months, whichever period should be the shorter. The Senate extended
the terms of reference of the Joint Committee so as to cover the
general question of the remuneration of Ministers and the allowances
paid to members of the Ddil as well as the Senate. The Ddil concurred
and the Committee, which was presided over by Senator P. J. Hooper,
reported on the 4th December 1 929. 1

With regard to the Ministers, the Committee recommended that
their salaries should remain unaltered, but that a scheme of special
1 Reports of Committees , vol. iii, p. 819.

REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE 511

allowances for cx-Ministers should be introduced, such allowances
to continue for a period not exceeding five years after retirement from
office.

With regard to the question of allowances to members of the
Senate and the Ddil, the Committee reported as follows :

‘The Committee does not feel justified in recommending any re-
duction in the present scale of allowances paid to members of the
Oireachtas. In arriving at this conclusion the Committee was in-
fluenced by two main considerations :

(a) that, in a democratic State, membership of either House of the
Legislature should be open to citizens of every rank without undue
sacrifice of private interests, and

( b ) that, having regard to the actual interference with such interests
and to the expenses inevitably incidental to their position as members
of the Oireachtas, Senators and Deputies who discharge their duties
conscientiously give full value to the State for the allowances now
paid to them. A minority contended that the allowances to Senators
should be reduced, because the parliamentary duties and public acti-
vities which Senators are required to undertake are not so extensive
as in the case of Deputies. This contention was not accepted by the
majority, which held that the existing allowance rate should be re-
garded as a minimum for members of either House, that there should
be an increase in the amount of work entrusted to Senators, and that
if any financial change were to be made it should take the form of an
increase in the allowance to Deputies.

The methods of payment of members in different countries were
considered, and it is agreed unanimously that the present system of
payment at a fixed rate is the most satisfactory arrangement. It is
held that a person who becomes a member of either House of the
Oireachtas, whether his attendance at the House or at Parliamentary
Committees be required frequently or not, must be prepared to devote
much of his time and attention to parliamentary business in general,
and that attendance at sittings would provide a false basis on which
to assess the actual amount of work he is expected to perform.’

No action was taken by either House on foot of this Report; and
the recommendations for allowances to ex-Ministers, and for increas-
ing the amount of work entrusted to the Senate, were not imple-
mented. But the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act, 1938,
already referred to, now makes provision for pensions to the former
holders of ministerial and other offices.

Before we deal with the Joint Committee’s findings on the subject

512 ATTENDANCE AND PAYMENT OF MEMBERS

of Senators’ allowances it will be as well to follow the history of
Professor Thrift’s Bill to its conclusion. After the Report of the Com-
mittee had been received, the Second Reading was resumed; and,
when the discussion had extended over four separate days, the Bill
was finally rejected on the 12th March 1930. The standard of dis-
cussion throughout is an exhibition of democracy at its worst. 1
Serious argument was hardly attempted by anybody. Unhumorous
puns were made on Professor Thrift’s surname and on that of
Deputy Hugh Law by a member who is now one of Mr. De Valera’s
Parliamentary Secretaries, and who also aspersed the motives of
the promoters of the Bill and indulged in personalities at the ex-
pense of members of the Labour Party on account of their atti-
tude towards it. Allegations and counter-allegations were made by
members of the two principal political parties with regard to each
other’s party funds. A Deputy who was later to become one of Mr.
De Valera’s Ministers asserted that ‘ the Senate meets on an average
about forty days in the year and meets for the purpose of watching
the Clerk stamp Government Bills and of discussing the advisability
of adjourning for tea’. As this idle and unprofitable talk fills not far
short of two hundred columns of the Dail Debates, occupying in the
aggregate some nine or ten hours of parliamentary time, there was a
touch of comedy in the statement of this future Minister that ‘the
view of Deputies on these benches is that if we want . . . work done
well it should not be entrusted to Senators, but if it is of an unim-
portant nature which would be likely merely to waste the time of the
D&il, it might safely be entrusted to the Second Chamber’. Profes-
sor Thrift must have heaved a sigh of relief when the rejection of his
Bill by two votes put an end to the possibility of further sfcurrility on
this topic.

It is difficult to appreciate the point of view of the majority of the
Joint Committee that there should be no differentiation between the
two Houses in respect of the allowances paid. The Ddil sat much more
frequently than the Senate, and the average duration of the sitting
was much longer. Let us take, as a specimen, the year 1933, which
is the year most favourable to the Senate, because the number of days
sat and the total time were greater than in any other year. 2 In 1933
the Senate sat on fifty-one days, the total time was 199 hours 40
minutes, and the average duration of each sitting was 3 hours 50

1 Dail Debates, xxviii, 375-400, 548-77, 792-8; xxxiii, 764-832, 1376-1412,
1623-40, 1767-72.

a The statistics for each calendar year are given in Appendix H.

COMPARISON WITH DAIL MEMBERS- 513

minutes. The Dail sat on eighty days, the total time was 549 hours
5 minutes, and the average duration was 6 hours 50 minutes. The
time spent in Joint, Select, and Special Committees did nothing to
redress the balance. In this same year (1933) the time occupied by
Senators in committee work of this kind was considerably less than
twenty hours, and of course the Senators who sat on such com-
mittees were few.

If we have regard to the demand on extra-parliamentary time, and
to the calls on the individual purse, a comparison is still unfavourable
to the Senate. Each member of the Dail represented a constituency,
and that constituency (except in the case of the university members)
was very large and very populous. In every constituency there were
numbers of electors with posts to seek or grievances to be redressed;
and each member of the Dail was a conduit-pipe through which such
grievances or requests were conveyed to the appropriate Government
Department, or given publicity by means of a Parliamentary Ques-
tion. Requests for posts, even from the ill-qualified, had to be dealt
with, and grievances, whether real or imaginary, had to be heard
with a sympathetic ear; for indifference, or seeming indifference,
might easily spell disaster for a Gallio at a succeeding general elec-
tion. Hence much time was spent by Deputies in personal interviews,
their correspondence was voluminous, and their postage bill a heavy
one. Moreover, constituencies have to be nursed, an attention which
costs time and money; and when general elections occur (sometimes,
as in 1927 and 1932-33, twice within twelve months) the drain upon
the financial resources of retiring members must be heavy. None of
these considerations applied to Senators. They represented no con-
stituency, no Parliamentary Questions were allowed, and their cor-
respondence, qua Senators, was either small or non-existent. In 1925,
when they were elected by the country as a whole, their election
expenses can have amounted to little more than the cost of a small
amount of advertising in the newspapers. Subsequently, after the
system was changed to election by members of both Houses, the total
electorate numbered only 213, and nothing was needed beyond per-
sonal contacts and canvassing, involving no expenditure.

The sole valid argument why the rate of allowance should be the
same for the Senate as for the Dail was that the work done by the
average Senator, while occupying a much shorter time, was more
valuable than that done by the average Deputy, and was accordingly
remunerated, proportionately to time, at a higher rate. But we can
come to a just conclusion on the subject only after considering
2l

514 ATTENDANCE AND PAYMENT OF MEMBERS

two factors : first, the calls upon the time of Senators, and, second,
the way in which those calls were answered — that is to say, the
average attendance. Attendance at committees was, as has been indi-
cated, a negligible factor ; and the view of the Joint Committee that
‘attendance at sittings would provide a false basis on which to assess
the actual amount of work’ members are ‘expected to perform’ is
not one that carries conviction. The word ‘expected’ seems to suggest
that the basis for the committee’s conclusions was theoretical and not
empirical.

Commencing on the 30th May 1923 a record of the attendance at
each meeting of the Senate was taken by the Clerks at the Table and
printed in the Journal of the Proceedings of the House. 1 The statistics
show that the Senate sat, on an average, for forty days a year, and
that the average duration of the sitting was 3 hours 10 minutes.
Actually the latter figure does not quite do the Senate justice. In all
Second Chambers a number of formal meetings are necessitated
from time to time, and the business transacted at them is quickly
disposed of. It seems fair to treat any sitting of half an hour or less
as a formal sitting, and during the life of the Senate there were thirty-
two such sittings, which lasted in some cases for as short a period as
ten minutes. If these be disregarded, the average duration would be
nearer three hours and a half. We shall therefore not be far wrong in
saying that if a member of the Senate did his full duty he might expect
to have to attend for about forty days a year and to give something
under four hours of his time on each of those forty days.

As this demand was not very great, it might have been expected
that the percentage of attendance would be fairly high. Actually, it
was quite reasonably high — forty-one out of sixty over the whole
period : probably forty-three if we disregard the formal sittings, at
which it was sufficient if a mere quorum was present for the transac-
tion of non-contentious business. But there was no spread-over of
this average over the whole personnel of the Senate. Some Senators
attended on almost every possible occasion; the attendance of most
of the others was reasonably satisfactory; the attendance of a few
was indifferent.

During the first two Triennial Periods, 1922-8, the bad attendance
of certain Senators was a grave scandal, which was the subject of
frequent animadversion in the Senate. The worst offenders were to
be found among the nominated half of the House — some of them
former Southern Unionists, the protection of whose interests had
1 The average attendance for each calendar year is shown in Appendix I.

LAXITY IN ATTENDANCE '515

been one of the factors which led to the establishment of the Second
Chamber. (In fairness to them it should be remembered that a num-
ber of them lived in England, their Irish homes having been burnt or
otherwise destroyed by Mr. De Valera’s followers.) From the date
on which the attendance began to be officially recorded (30th May
1923) to the end of the second Triennial Period (5th December 1928)
the Senate met on 220 occasions. During this period one Senator,
who lived near Dublin, attended only twice: so that, if he drew his
‘allowance towards expenses’ of £30 a month, as presumably he did,
he received from the State the sum of £2,160, free of income-tax, for
virtually no return. Another Senator attended only twenty-six times,
a third only thirty-seven times, a fourth only fifty-one times, and a
fifth only sixty-five times. These five Senators were all nominated and
sat for six years; and when their term of office expired they did not
offer themselves for re-election. It is right to say that the two whose
attendance was poorest, both of whom are now dead, were not
Southern Unionists.

This laxity in attendance was considered by the Joint Committee,
though it seems doubtful if they were aware of its extent. Their Report
deals with the matter as follows : ‘It was brought to the notice of the
Committee that occasionally there have been members of the Dail
and Senate who by lax attendance at sittings have shown disregard
for their obligations as legislators. These, however, are exceptional
cases, and in the opinion of the Committee should be the subject of
special provision. The Committee is not satisfied as to the feasibility
of any general scheme involving automatic diminution of allowance
on account of non-attendance, but thinks that the law should be
amended to permit of each House establishing a procedure for deal-
ing with special cases of protracted absence or irregular attendance
of its members. The Committee recommends that such procedure
should make provision for the summoning by the House of the
member to attend, failure to comply with this summons, without
adequate explanation, to be followed by withdrawal of his allowance,
either wholly or in part, for a specified period.’

No attempt was made to procure the requisite changes in the law,
either on the lines recommended by the Committee or in some other
way. So far as the Senate was concerned, from the beginning of the
third Triennial Period (6th December 1928) until the date of aboli-
tion there was a marked improvement in the attendance, as reference
to Appendix I will show. A number of Senators whose attendance had
been poor had either died, resigned, or not offered themselves for re-

516 ATTENDANCE AND PAYMENT OF MEMBERS

election, and their successors attended more frequently. Unfortu-
nately, this improvement was accompanied by a deterioration in
personnel. But the chief reason for the upward trend in the atten-
dance figures was the introduction of party politics, rendered inevi-
table by the advent of Mr. De Valera’s followers. Their general atti-
tude towards the Senate and its functions was completely at variance
with the traditions which had been built up during the preceding six
years. One of their number was quite frank about it. ‘I say for myself,
and I think I can say for every member of this Party, that we came
into it [the Senate] on the invitation of the Party. When I came in
here, I came in on the definite understanding that when the time arose
I was to be here to do my bit to wreck this House. I am here to-day
to see that wrecking, and I make no apologies for that. When this
House is abolished I will feel that I will have done a good day’s work
for my country.’ 1 When the members of a political party have this
outlook, the atmosphere of reasoned discussion must inevitably give
place to the arbitrament of the division lobby, and something in the
nature of a party system becomes a necessity. In 1928 there were only
fourteen divisions ; the following year there were fifty. If the policy of
‘wrecking’ was not to prevail, it was essential that there should be a
substantial attendance of those who were opposed to the wreckers.

The scandal of individual bad attendance, however, continued
until the end. In the last complete Triennial Period (1931-4) there
were 132 meetings of the Senate. One Senator, who is now dead,
never attended at all and therefore gave no return whatever for the
£30 a month which he received during those three years. (This same
Senator had, in the previous three years, attended only eighteen times
out of a possible 109, and so in six years he was paid more than
£2,000 for virtually nothing.) Another Senator attended only
eighteen times out of 1 32, and a third only twenty-eight times ; and
there were others whose attendance was nearly as bad. This third
Senator was not elected until the 6th December 1931, and from that
date until the Senate was abolished he attended on only thirty-nine
occasions out of a possible 185.

Unreasonably low attendance on the part of a few of its members
thus characterized the Senate from the beginning until the end. It
would, of course, have been possible so to amend the electoral laws
as automatically to vacate the seat of any Senator who, without just
or sufficient cause, gave less than a prescribed minimum of atten-
dance in any period of twelve consecutive months ; and, in the case

1 Senate Debates, xx, 1895.

PROBLEM OF IMPECUNIOUS CANDIDATE 517

of Senators offering themselves as candidates for re-election, the
example might well have been followed of certain learned societies
which, in the elections to their governing bodies, print on the ballot
paper, against the name of each such candidate, figures giving his
attendance during his period of office, with the possible maximum
shown in brackets. But no such experiments were tried, and it must
be confessed that they would have been only palliatives. They would
not have gone to the root of the evil, which was directly traceable to
the fact that Senators were paid.

The fact well exemplifies the truth of the Horatian maxim, Naturam
expellas furca, tamen usque' recurret. One cannot change human
nature, and it is natural that, in a country in which dependence on
government is, through no fault of the people, something of a
tradition, the position of a Senator should be coveted by many largely
on account of the emoluments attached to it. Nobody who is familiar
with the intimate history of the Senate can be unaware of the fact
that, at every election from 1922 onwards, there were some candi-
dates who had little claim to be qualified to share in the making of
their country’s laws, and who would not have been candidates but
for the fact that a seat in the Senate carried with it a salary. A few
of these candidates were successful at every election, and this must
always be the case when the electorate is small, because of the greater
activity in canvassing of those whose pecuniary need is pressing.
Though the sum of £360 a year was expressed to be an ‘allowance
towards expenses’, it was in actual fact the greater part of the income
of some Senators of this type. Such men contributed little or nothing
of value to the deliberations of the House, their attendance was often
indifferent, and when they were ill for prolonged periods they could
not face the loss of income which resignation would entail.

If Senators (other than the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman) had .
not been paid, or had received merely their out-of-pocket expenses,
the attendance scandal might have been minimized and the per-
sonnel of the Senate would undoubtedly ' have been improved.
Comparison with such countries as South Africa and Australia is
beside the point, because of the vast distances that have to be travelled
in those countries. In time of session Senators who live in, say,
Maritzburg or Freemantle must be prepared to reside continuously
in Cape Town or Canberra, as the case may be; but Irish Senators
could, in nearly every instance, attend a sitting in Dublin and be at
home the same night, or, at latest, by noon on the following day. In
the State of New South Wales, where the Senate is exactly framed on

518 ATTENDANCE AND PAYMENT OF MEMBERS
the Dublin model, the members are unpaid, and the result has been
admirable.

The statement of the Joint Committee that ‘in a democratic State,
membership of either House of the Legislature should be open to
citizens of every rank without undue sacrifice of private interests’ is
excellent as a general principle ; but, as in the case of so many general
principles, the difficulty lies in its practical application. The idea
which found expression in some quarters that the Second Chamber
should be open to working men has not a great deal to be said for
it. If, by the time a working man had reached the mature age desir-
able for the revision of legislation, he had acquired sufficient ability
to engage successfully in the task of such revision, he would also
assuredly have acquired sufficient ability so to establish himself in his
chosen sphere as to be independent of a stipend as a Senator. It was
sometimes also asserted that non-payment of Senators would have
debarred members of the Labour Party. This, however, is very far
from being the case. Labour members such as Senators O’Farrell,
Johnson, and others were among the best legislators that the Senate
ever had; but they would have been in the Senate irrespective of pay-
ment, partly from a sense of public duty and partly because it was
vitally important for the powerful Labour organizations that their
point of view should find expression in the most cogent way possible,
in the Second Chamber, by men who were of the hierarchy of Labour.
The place for Labour politicians of a different type, who belonged to
the rank and file, was not in the Senate but in the Popular House.

In short, non-payment of members would have closed the Senate’s
doors to no legitimate interest ; it would have solved the problem of
the impecunious candidate and so have procured a superior per-
sonnel, and, probably, a better attendance ; and it would have set
an example of the dignity and honour of service in the legislature
which could not but have enhanced the general prestige of the
Second Chamber and of its individual members.

For the sake of completeness, it is desirable to add a note on the
changes which have taken place since the Constitution of 1937 was
promulgated. The Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Act, 1938,
passed on the 21st December 1938, consolidates the law on the
subject, the four existing statutes being repealed. The allowance to
members of the D&il is fixed at £40 a month, and members of the
new Senate receive an allowance of £30 a month — the same as was
paid to members of the old.

CHAPTER XXX

THE INITIATION OF LEGISLATION 1

Co-equal right of the Senate under the Constitution — Two ways in
which this right normally exercised elsewhere — Complex Government
Bills of a non-controversial type — Private Members’ Bills — No
Government Bills initiated in the Senate — Resultant clogging of the
legislative machine — Reasons for the Government's attitude — The
Industrial and Commercial Property {Protection) Bill— No Parliamen-
tary Draftsman — No power to pay witnesses’ expenses — Fate of Senate
Bills in Dail — The Bill to restore the referendum ignored— The Town
Planning Bill— Its careful preparation — No consideration in Dail —
Similar treatment of other Bills-Peculiar effect of Article 39 of the
Constitution illustrated by history of the Wild Birds Protection Bill.

Under Article 39 of the Constitution the Senate possessed the right,
co-equally with the Dail, of initiating legislation. In other bicameral
legislatures, where this right is general, it is normally exercised in two
ways. First the Government, which is represented in the Upper
House by one or more Ministers, relieves the congestion in the
Popular Chamber by introducing in the Senate a number of Bills,
' which are often of an administrative rather than of a political charac-
ter. In the case of Bills of any complexity this procedure has manifest
advantages ; for, since the members of a Second Chamber may be
presumed to possess, in general, a somewhat higher level of ability,
a wider horizon and perhaps greater leisure than their colleagues in
the other House, a Second Chamber is an excellent place for such
Bills to be ‘licked into shape’, as the phrase goes, before they are
presented to the Lower House. The second way in which this right is
exercised is by the introduction of Private Members’ Bills, which are
often of such a character that, while desirable in themselves, they are

1 A complete list of Bills initiated in the Senate is printed in Appendix G.

\ 519

520 THE INITIATION OF LEGISLATION

not normally included in any Government’s programme because their
electoral appeal is small. In this category are Bills which deal with
humanitarian and cultural matters and those of which the scope is
sectional rather than national.

Bills of the former class, namely Government measures of an ad-
ministrative, non-political, and complex type, were never initiated
in the Senate. A few days before the dissolution of the 9th August
1923 the Government relieved the congestion in the Ddil by initiating
in the Senate three short Bills which called for no amendment. These
were the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Repeal Bill, the League of
Nations (Guarantee) Bill, and the Valuation (Postponement of Revi-
sion) Bill. As there was no Minister in the Upper House, two of
these were introduced by the Vice-Chairman and one by a private
Senator; and they were passed unamended by both Houses. From
first to last, this was the full extent of the Government’s use of the
Senate in the matter of initiating legislation. Periodically, the Ddil
was working at high pressure while the Senate was idle; and then,
usually just before the summer or Christmas recess, the Senate was
confronted with a mass of Bills, often ill-digested, which the Govern-
ment required to be passed into law within a few weeks. On such
occasions protests were made, and suggestions thrown out that better
use could be made of the Second Chamber as part of the legisla-
tive machine. On one occasion indeed (21st May 1924) Mr. Cosgrave
stated that it was the intention to initiate Government Bills in the
Senate, and there is little doubt that, left to himself, he would have
carried this out. But it is a fact, familiar to all who were connected
with the growth of our parliamentary institutions, that the general
attitude of the Government towards the Second Chamber, and still
more the attitude of the Ddil, was one of detachment, dislike, and
distrust; and its function in the legislative sphere was to be the
minimum accorded to it by the Constitution. By the time the Dc
Valera Administration took office in March 1932 the position had
become stabilized ; but in any case the extreme hostility of the new
President and his Ministers towards the Upper House made any
change out of the question.

How much was lost by this policy of non-co-operation may be
judged by the part played by members of the Senate in framing our
law relating to patents and copyright. In the spring of 1925 the
Government introduced a Bill entitled the Industrial and Commer-
cial Property (Protection) Bill in the Lower House, where it duly
received a Second Reading. This was a very complex measure of

PATENTS AND COPYRIGHT BILL 521

almost two hundred clauses, and it seems to have been recognized
that it could not be adequately dealt with at that stage without the
expert assistance available in the Senate. However that may be, the
Ddil took the unusual course, never afterwards repeated, of request-
ing the Senate to nominate members to a Joint Committee to consider
the Bill before it was proceeded with further in the D&il. The Senate
concurred, and among the Senate members of the Committee were
Sir John Purser Griffith, the doyen of Irish engineers, Mr. W. B.
Yeats, the poet, whose position as an author of international reputa-
tion qualified him to speak with authority on the subject of copy-
right, and Mr. S. L. Brown, K.C., admittedly the foremost expert in
the country on Patent Law. After months of work, the Committee,
under the chairmanship of Senator Brown, produced a voluminous
report of such a character as necessitated the recasting of the entire
Bill. 1 The original Bill was withdrawn and a new one substituted for
it; but even when this had been passed by the Dail it was still so
susceptible of improvement that no less than seventy amendments
were inserted in it by the Senate, all of them being accepted by the
other House. One cannot but regret that the Government did not
profit by this experience by subjecting Bills of a similar character and
complexity to the same process, or, preferably, by initiating them in
the Senate.

We now come to the second class of Bills, namely, those introduced
by individual Senators on their own responsibility. Here there were
certain difficulties. The Senate had not the services of a parliamen-
tary draftsman, and this was, of course, a serious disadvantage. But
it was offset to some extent by the fact that the House possessed in
Senator S. L. Brown possibly the profoundest Irish lawyer of his
time, and certainly the greatest authority on interpretation. He
drafted the Bills of which he was the introducer, or in which he was
otherwise interested, and his assistance was at all times freely avail-
able to his fellow members.

When a Bill initiated in the Senate had passed its Second Reading,
the normal procedure, unless the Bill was of a very simple character,
was to refer it to a Select Committee of the House entitled, as the
phrase has it, ‘to send for persons, papers and records’, that is to
say, to take sworn evidence. This course was followed in such cases
as the Coroners (Amendment) Bill, 1926, and the Slaughter of
Animals Bill, 1933. Here another difficulty arose. The Senate had no
control over its own finances, and it was in the humiliating position
1 Reports of Committees, vol. ii, p. 125.

522 THE INITIATION OF LEGISLATION

of being unable to defray even the out-of-pocket expenses of persons
willing to give evidence. Nevertheless, owing to the public spirit of
those concerned, valuable evidence was tendered and the results were
incorporated in the respective Bills.

When a Bill initiated in the Senate had passed through all its
Stages, it was duly certified and sent to the Ddil, with a request for
the concurrence of that House. But its further progress to the
Statute Book was problematical. There was, in fact, no guarantee
that it would even be considered. The appropriate Standing Order of
the Ddil provided that a Bill initiated in the Senate should be deemed
to have passed its First Stage in the DAil and should be placed on the
Order Paper for its Second Stage; but that, if no motion for its
Second Reading were proposed on the day it first appeared on the
Order Paper, it was to disappear from the Order Paper and could
not be further proceeded with except by leave of the Dail. Though
this Standing Order was not strictly enforced, the history of Bills
initiated in the Senate is not encouraging reading. A glance at the
Table (Appendix G) will show that, if we exclude the three small
Government Bills already referred to, and also the Oireachtas Wit-
nesses Oaths Bill, 1924 and the Private Bills Costs Bill, 1924, which
were purely machinery Bills, a total of fourteen Bills were initiated
in and passed by the Senate and sent to the Ddil. Of these, only one-
half reached the Statute Book in any form ; three were rejected, and
four were not even considered. Four were passed unamended and
three were passed with amendments. Of the four which were ignored,
one was quite a short measure, but it raised a point of outstanding
importance. This was the Constitution (Amendment No. 25) Bill,
1934, introduced by Senator Douglas and sent to the Dail on the 6th
June 1934. This sought to reinsert the referendum in the Constitution
in the case of constitutional amendments. Obviously such a Bill was
unwelcome to the De Valera Administration, because, if it had be-
come law, the abolition of the Senate, and of university representa-
tion in the Dail, could not have been achieved without a direct man-
date from the electorate. Nevertheless, it might have been expected
that the Government would have allowed the Bill to be considered
by the Ddil and that Ministers would have been prepared to give
reasons why it should be rejected. The more prudent course was taken
of ignoring it altogether, and it finally lapsed two years later with the
abolition of the Senate.

The other three Bills which were not considered were all skilfully
drafted measures on which much time and trouble had been spent. The

SENATE BILLS IGNORED BY DAlL 523

firstof them in point of time was theTownPlanningand Rural Ameni-
ties Bill, 1929. This was introduced by Senator Johnson, who enlisted
the services of the leading experts on the subject. Their help, together
with his own skill and the work done on the Bill during the period of
close on a year when it was before the Senate, resulted in an eminently
satisfactory measure. At the least, it was a Bill which ought to have
been acceptable when amended by the Dail in accordance with the
advice of the Government’s own experts. It was sent to the Dail on
the 12th March 1930, it was never considered, and it was killed by
the dissolution nearly two years later (29th January 1932). Mr. De
Valera took office, and in the course of time his Government pro-
duced a Bill on the same subject, and this was duly passed into law
more than four years after Senator Johnson’s Bill had left the Senate.

The fate of Senator O’Farrell’s Slaughter of Animals Bill was
similar. Here also was a well-conceived and competently drafted
measure, designed to render more humane the slaughter of animals
for food. It was amended in Select Committee in accordance with
evidence given by the best available experts on the subject; 1 and it
was sent to the Ddil on the 23rd February 1934. No action was taken
upon it, and more than a year and a half later the Government pro-
duced its own Bill on the same subject. This was duly passed into
law.

The third Bill was the Nurses’ and Midwives’ Pensions Bill, 1935,
the title of which sufficiently explains the scope of the measure. This
was introduced by Senator J. C. Dowdall, a member of the Govern-
ment party, though the actual work of piloting it through the House
was undertaken by Senator Sir Edward Coey Bigger, the chairman
of the Central Midwives Board. The Bill was sent to the Dail on the
5th December 1935, it was ignored, and it lapsed with the abolition
of the Senate.

The conclusion is irresistible that, whatever government was in
power, few Bills of any importance initiated in the Senate were accep-
table to the Ddil, even as a basis on which, by means of amendment,
to erect a statute.

It is desirable to close this chapter by drawing attention to the
peculiar, and even ludicrous, effect of Article 39 of the Constitution
on Bills initiated in the Senate and amended by the Ddil. The Article
in question provided that a Bill so amended should be considered as
a Bill initiated in the Ddil. The effect of this provision is best illus-
trated by an example. Senator Brown’s admirable Wild Birds Protec-
1 Reports of Committees, vo3. iv, p. 481.

524 THE INITIATION OF LEGISLATION

tion Bill, 1929, which codified the law on the subject, was sent down
to the Ddil and passed by that House with some seventeen amend-
ments. These were for the most part of a trifling character, such as
the deletion from or addition to a Schedule of the name of a particular
bird. But the whole Bill, as amended, was reprinted by the Ddil, the
amendments being nowhere indicated by italics or otherwise ; and a
certified copy was sent to the Senate, with a request that that House
should pass it. To render the proceedings intelligible to Senators, it
was necessary for Senator Brown, as the sponsor of the original Bill,
to explain to the House, in detail, in what respects the new Bill
differed from the old. The Bill was then put through its different
Stages in the Senate, and a message sent to the Ddil stating that the
Senate had agreed to it. There seems to have been no sound reason
for the provision in the Constitution which gave rise to this unusual
procedure, which Senator Brown characterized as ‘a clumsy way of
carrying on legislation’. 1 If the Senate should refuse to agree to an
amendment made in one of its own Bills by the Ddil, and a deadlock
should ensue, it is difficult to see how the Lower House
could be damnified by the loss of a Bill which it had not originated.
Nevertheless, the provision is reproduced in the Constitution of
1937 (Article 20).

1 Senate Debates, xiii, 1346.

CHAPTER XXXI

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Meaning of the term — Remarkable growth of delegated legislation —
Statistics for the whole period-— Bureaucratic invasion of parliamentary
rights — Often no retention of ultimate control— Four main classes in
which control retained— The First Class — The power of annulment —
Variations of the common form — Sub-division of the First Class —
Watchfulness of the Senate — Examples — The Censorship of Publica-
tions Bill — The Unemployment Assistance Bill— Attempts to exclude
the Senate from control— Incuriosity of legislators — Little attempted
use of power of annulment — The Second Class — A positive resolution
of approval required— The Courts of Justice Bill, 1923 — Struggle over
the Rules of Court — Lord Glenavy’s ridicule — Senator Brown's amend-
ment — Government's attempt to secure hasty approval of the Rules —
The Senate's Refusal— Disagreement with the Government over pro-
cedure — Anomalous position of the District Court Rules — The Rules of
the Circuit Court — The first set withdrawn — The second set also with-
drawn — The third set approved after five years — Advantages of positive
resolutions — Sub-divisions of the Second Class — The State Lands Act
— The Control of Imports Act — Quota Orders — High level of debates
in Senate — The Third Class — Confirmation by statute — The Emer-
gency Imposition of Duties Act — Number of Orders thereunder — The
Fourth Class — Senate given a power of recommendation only — False
analogy with Money Bills — A point of constitutional interest — Sharp
controversy with the Government — Acceptance of the Senate amend-
ments — Subsequent rejection of the Senate point of view.

By the term ‘delegated legislation’, as used in this chapter, is meant
that body of law which is made administratively by means of rules,
orders, and regulations framed and promulgated by a Minister of
State, or by the Executive Council collectively, in pursuance of a

525

526 DELEGATED LEGISLATION

power conferred on such Minister or Council by an Act of Parlia-
ment. The term seems preferable to ‘administrative law’, as it avoids
any suggestion of an exact analogy with droit administratif.

The growth of this delegated legislation in the post-war period,
representing, as it does, an enlargement of the bureaucracy at the
expense of Parliament, is a phenomenon which has excited apprehen-
sion in Great Britain and other States of the British Commonwealth
among those who have a proper regard for democratic institutions.
The abuses inseparable from it have been trenchantly exposed by the
present Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Hcwart) in his book The
New Despotism (1929), and the matter has been the subject of an in-
quiry by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, which
reported in 1932. 1 But it is improbable that delegated legislation has
attained in these other countries the remarkable dimensions which it
has achieved in the Irish Free State, where its sinister growth (espe-
cially in recent years under Mr. De Valera’s Administration) has
passed almost unnoticed. The following Table shows the number of
Acts passed by Parliament and the number of Statutory Rules and
Orders promulgated by the Executive (or by an Executive Minister)
during each of the thirteen completed years of the Senate’s existence.

Year

Number of Acts

Number of Statutory
Rules and Orders

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

110

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

119

1933

190

1934

389

1935

684

Total 592

2,044

It must be conceded that these are striking figures. Over the whole

period of thirteen years the number of items of delegated legislation

1 Report of the Committee on Ministers' Powers , 1931-32, Cmd. 4060 (1932),
vol.xii, p.341.

GROWTH OF SUBSIDIARY LAW 527

exceeds the number of statutes by more than three to one, but in the
final year (1935) the proportion has become nearly fifteen to one. In
this one year alone Mr. De Valera’s Government promulgated more
Statutory Rules and Orders than were issued during the whole nine
years when Mr. Cosgrave was in power (684 against 662). This alarm-
ing situation is so much taken for granted that two members of the
Bar (one of whom is now a judge) could write as follows in the
Introduction to A Register of Administrative Law in Saorstat fireann,
which covers the period down to the end of 1933 and which was com-
piled by them and published under Government auspices in 1935 :

‘The Oireachtas, accepting the view that its laws should in the main
be statements of principle, has shown a notable tendency to delegate
the detailed elaboration and the practical application of its enact-
ments. Legislation over a very wide area of civic activities has accor-
dingly been reinforced by administrative directions of the most varied
kinds and an extensive range of subsidiary law has grown up in the
twelve years under review, far greater in volume than the body of law
directly enacted by the Oireachtas.’

The assertion that the Oireachtas has accepted ‘the view that its
laws should in the main be statements of principle’ is a matter of
opinion with which it is possible to disagree. There certainly was
never any conscious acceptance of such a view; and it would doubt-
less be more correct to say that this delegated legislation has grown
to such an extent because members of both the Senate and the Ddil
were insufficiently on their guard against the invasion by the bureau-
cracy of the rights of Parliament. What happened in practice was
very much as has been described by Sir Lynden Macassey, K.C.,
writing of the Parliament at Westminster :

‘Government Bills are forced through Parliament under the pres-
sure of the Government Whips ; there is little time for discussion of
their provisions either in the House or in Committee; legislation is
passed in the most general terms and left to some Government depart-
ment to apply as it thinks fit under machinery or rules to be made by
it ; the Cabinet is therefore in a position, through its member at the
head of a Government department, to embark on a particular policy
which has never in any detail been discussed in Parliament or com-
municated to the public. If the action of the department is challenged
in the House, the Government can say, as has been done, that the
action of the department is fully within the powers conferred upon
it by the Legislature.’ 1

1 Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, vol. v, part i, p. 73.

528 DELEGATED LEGISLATION

In the great majority of cases, Parliament retained no power of
ultimate control over this delegated legislation, and the bulk of it
was not even brought to the notice of the Senate and the Dail by
being formally laid on the table of each House. In 1935, for example,
there were 684 Statutory Rules and Orders, but only 474 papers laid
on the table of the Senate ; and of these 474 papers a large number,
amounting possibly to as much as one-half, consisted of documents
other than Statutory Rules and Orders, such as statistics and reports
of various kinds.

The cases in which some form of ultimate control, positive or nega-
tive, was retained are reducible, so far as the Senate was concerned, to
four main classes. In all cases, the document was required by statute
to be laid on the table of each House.

The first, and by far the commonest, class was that in which the
Act which delegated the power of making rules, orders, or regulations
reserved to Parliament the power of annulment, by means of a section
or sub-section in the following form : ‘ Every regulation made under
this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon
as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by either such
House within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which such
House has sat after such regulation is laid before it annulling such
regulation, such regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but with-
out prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such
regulation.’ This clause, or a variant of it, appeared possibly a
hundred times in the Acts passed during the thirteen and a half years’
existence of the Senate, sometimes more than once in the same
statute. Some of the variations were probably due to inadvertence.
Thus, under the Censorship of Films Act, 1923 (Section 12), and the
Electoral Act, 1923 (Section 64), the appropriate resolution had to
be passed within twenty-one days on which either House had sat.
Under the Land Act, 1923 (Section 76), the period of twenty-one days
signified ordinary days, not sitting days; under the Industrial and
Commercial Property (Protection) Act, 1927 (Section 153), the period
was not twenty-one days but forty days, and under the Cement Act,
1933 (Section 9), it was ten days.

A sub-division of this first class is provided by those statutes, few
in number, under which a resolution of both Houses was necessary
for annulment, viz., the Army Pensions Act, 1923 (Section 15), the
Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923 (Section 13), the
Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923 (Sections 4, 5,
and 20), the Local Government (Collection of Rates) Act, 1924

WATCHFULNESS OF SENATE 529

(Section 7), and the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1924 (Section 9).
In the case of the last-mentioned Act, the Senate passed an amend-
ment deleting the words ‘both Houses’ and substituting the words
‘either House’. This was rejected by the Dail at the instance of the
Government, but the principle (if any) on which the distinction was
made between these cases and the others was not made clear during
the discussion. 1

The Senate had, in general, much more regard than had the Dail
to the necessity of preserving the ultimate control of Parliament over
this delegated legislation. On numerous occasions Bills reached the
Senate from the other House in which Ministers were empowered
to make regulations or orders but containing no provision that such
regulations or orders should be laid before Parliament, nor, of
course, any power of annulment. Amendments were moved and
carried in the Senate to remedy these omissions, often against the
wishes of the Government, and they were subsequently accepted by
the Dail. Two examples will suffice — one from each Administration.

In 1928 a Censorship of Publications Bill was introduced by Mr,
Cosgrave’s Government and passed by the Dail. This was a highly
contentious measure, which provided for a censorship of books and
for the restriction of reports of certain classes of judicial proceedings ;
and the Minister for Justice was empowered by order to make regula-
tions covering the whole subject-matter of the Bill, with, however, no
provision that such regulations should be brought to the notice of
Parliament, and no provision for annulment. An amendment to make
good these defects, couched in the usual form, was moved by Senator
Hooper, a former editor of the Freeman's Journal ; and it was re-
sisted by the Minister for Justice (Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney, K.C.), who
spoke as follows :

‘I suggest that the Senate ought not to accept this amendment.
The laying of rules, which are merely rules of procedure, before the
D4il and the Senate sometimes leads to a great deal of trouble and
difficulty. ... I suggest that the proper procedure would be that the
rules would be made. The Minister who makes the rules is respon-
sible. If anybody objects to any particular rule, then a motion of
censure can be put down, and the rule objected to can be discussed
in that way. It appears to me that, except in very rare cases, the whole
method of laying rules of procedure on the Table of the Dail or
Senate, or both together, is not a desirable form of procedure. It is
troublesome, slow and quite unnecessary.’ 2

1 Dail Debates, vi, 1451-64. 2 Senate Debates, xli, 608, 609.

530 DELEGATED LEGISLATION

This, of course, was the voice of bureaucracy. Senators were un-
convinced, and they passed Senator Hooper’s amendment, which
was subsequently accepted by the Dail.

Some years later, after the change of government, a far-reaching
Unemployment Assistance Bill was brought forward, the Minister
in charge of it being Mr. Sedn Lemass, Minister for Industry and
Commerce in Mr. De Valera’s Administration. This Bill, which was
one of great complexity, made provision, as its title indicates, for the
financial relief of unemployed persons. In spite of its length, it would
not be unfair to say that the Bill was to some extent a skeleton, which
required to be filled in by regulations which the Minister was duly
empowered to make ; but the provisions for tabling and annulment
were lacking as before. Senator Brown, K.C., accordingly proposed
an amendment, embodying these provisions in the common form.

‘I think’, he said, ‘there never was a Bill about which we have so
little idea as to how it is going to work or how much it is going to
cost. ... On the Second Reading of the Bill the Minister himself I
think rather vaguely suggested, but still did suggest, that the figure

was quite likely to be over £1,000,000 a year The whole thing is

a leap in the dark, but it is a leap which we have got to take. ... I
respectfully submit that the regulations made by the Minister are of
such vital importance to the due and proper administration of the
Act that they should be laid on the Table of the House, so that the
House will have an opportunity of seeing the steps that are taken to
provide for the due and proper administration of the Act, about which
we can know so little and about which we can only fear so much.’ 1

The Minister opposed the amendment: ‘One cannot conceive any
Minister administering an Act of this kind with any expedition if the
regulations that he makes are to be subject to revision or annulment
within a specified time which may run to three or four months. . . .
So far as this Act is concerned, it is in a sense taking a leap in the
dark. We are going to make regulations under the Act. We are going
to change those regulations and possibly change them again before
we will be able to build up the code of regulations which will satisfy
our requirements and give us the type of administration that we
desire. But Ministers are only human beings. If they make regula-
tions, and can amend them as occasion requires, they will do so, but
if they have to come to the D&il and Senate and table amending
regulations in order to remove mistakes in earlier regulations, then
they will be much slower in making regulations at all. . . .

1 Senate Debates, xvii, 1702, 1703.

INCURIOSITY OF LEGISLATORS 531

‘If we want to bring the Actinto operation speedily we must be
given a certain amount of discretion in the matter of making regula-
tions. If Senators want to take away from us that discretion: to
ensure that all these administrative acts will come under the review
of both the Dail and the Senate and in that way be subject to annul-
ment or amendment, then we arc going to go more slowly and not
leave ourselves open to the criticism that we made mistakes that we
could have avoided by going more slowly.’ 1

Here, again, was the voice of bureaucracy, but the Senate was not
convinced. It passed Senator Brown’s amendment, which was ac-
cepted by the Ddil and is now incorporated in the Act.

During Mr. De Valera’s Administration attempts were occasionally
made by the Government to exclude this delegated legislation from
the purview of the Senate by limiting the tabling and the power of
annulment to the Dail. This happened, for example, in the cases of
the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilization) Bill, 1932 (Section 42), and
the Control of Manufactures Bill, 1934 (Section 16). In each case,
the co-equal power of the Senate was restored by means of amend-
ments carried in that House and accepted by the Dail. The power of
annulment was, of course, theoretically a greater safeguard for the
people in the case of the Senate than in the case of the other House;
for, as the Government is responsible to the Ddil, an annulment
motion in that House might be treated as a matter of confidence. If
so, the Party Whips would ensure that it would be rejected. These
considerations did not apply to the Senate.

This, however, is mere theory. It is a curious psychological fact,
and one doubtless of much comfort to a bureaucracy, that even the
most conscientious public representative will scarcely be at the pains
to read a document formally laid on the table of the House unless his
attention is specially directed to it or unless he is personally interested
in the subject-matter of it. The ‘table’, of course, is a fiction, since
no table could be found large enough to accommodate the vast
quantity of documents presented so that each could be adequately dis-
played. Copies were not circulated to Senators in the same way as
Bills, and Senators knew that they would not normally be called
upon to discuss their contents in the House. All that happened in
practice was that the titles of such documents as were received were
printed on the Order Paper next prepared after receipt, under the
general heading of ‘Papers on the Table’. This was a sufficient in-
timation to the curious that copies might be consulted in the Parlia-
1 Senate Debates, xvii, 1706-8.

532 DELEGATED LEGISLATION

mentary Library; but, as there were sometimes large numbers' on a
single Order Paper (on one occasion in 1935 there were no less than
119), any individual item was liable to be overlooked.

Doubtless for these reasons, the power of annulment was virtually
a dead letter in both Houses. A motion to annul a Ministerial order
or Ministerial regulations was proposed in the Senate on only five
occasions: three times by Senator Sir John Keane and twice by
Senator Johnson. Sir John Keane’s motions were put down for the
purpose of discussion, and were withdrawn by him when that pur-
pose had been served. Senator Johnson’s motions were pressed to a
division and lost.

Hitherto we have been considering delegated legislation of the first
class, in which Parliament reserved to itself a negative control by
means of a power of annulment. We now come to the cases of the
second class, in which the vis inertiae lay the other way : that is to say,
a positive resolution of both Houses was required before the orders,
rules, or regulations became of statutory effect. The number of cases
in this class was extremely small ; and, while it is not claimed that the
following list is complete, it probably is complete or nearly so.

1. Courts of Justice Act, 1924 (Section 101). Approval of Rules of
Court.

2. Garda Siochana Act, 1924 (Section 8). Regulations as to Pen-
sions of Members of the Police Force.

3. Police Forces Amalgamation Act, 1925 (Section 13). Ditto.

4. Summer Time Act, 1925 (Section 3). Alteration by Order of
statutory period of Summer Time.

5. Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930 (Section 103). Abroga-
tion by Order of Private Acts and Orders relating to the City of
Dublin.

6. Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1928 (Section 5). Confirmation
of Pension Schemes of Secondary Teachers.

Incomparably the most important of these cases is the Courts of
Justice Act, 1924. The Bill was introduced in the Dail in the autumn
of 1923, and it recast the whole judicial system of the country. In the
days before the Treaty the system had consisted principally of Petty
Sessions Courts, presided over by unpaid magistrates assisted by a
paid resident magistrate : County Courts, one for each county : the
Supreme Court of Judicature, consisting of the High Court of Justice
and the Court of Appeal : and the Court of Crown Cases Reserved,
the only Court of Criminal Appeal. On the 27th January 1923, a
Judiciary Committee was set up, under the chairmanship of Lord

THE RULES OF COURT 533

Glenavy, to advise the Executive Council as to the establishment of a
new system, under Article 64 of the Constitution. The Courts of
Justice Bill was largely based on the recommendations of this Com-
mittee. It provided for District Courts, to replace the old Petty
Sessions Courts, presided over by paid District Justices, with an
enlarged jurisdiction : eight Circuit Courts, grouped by counties,
replacing the County Courts, and with a greatly enlarged jurisdic-
tion : a High Court of six judges, one of whom was to preside, with
the title of President of the High Court: a Supreme Court of three
judges, one of whom was to be Chief Justice (the prefix ‘Lord’ being
dropped) : and a Court of Criminal Appeal. Matters formerly under
the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor were placed under the special
jurisdiction of the Chief Justice.

Under the old regime the Rules of Court, which might be described
as the machinery whereby justice is dispensed, were made by the
judges under the Judicature Act, the signature of the Lord-Lieutenant
being appended as a mere formality. Under the provisions of the new
Bill, the Rules of the High Court and Supreme Court were to be
made by the Minister for Home Affairs, with the concurrence of a
committee consisting of the judges and certain practising lawyers.
The provisions regarding the Rules of the Circuit Court and District
Court were similar. Thus the manner in which the jurisdiction vested
in the new courts, as regards pleading, practice, and procedure, and
even as regards the dress to be worn by Bench and Bar, was to be
decided by Rules of Court to be made by an Executive Minister ; and
though these Rules were admitted by the Attorney-General (the late
Hugh Kennedy, K.G.) to be delegated legislation, the only power
purported to be accorded by the Bill to Parliament was the negative
power of annulment within one month.

A strenuous campaign of opposition to these innovations was con-
ducted in the Senate. Ridicule is always a potent weapon in Ireland,
and the proposal about dress was a promising target for it. It was
known that the Attorney-General was determined, if possible, to
abolish the traditional wig and gown and had been making inquiries
about the special costume, if any, worn by the Irish brehons (judges)
centuries ago. Lord Glenavy fixed upon this proposal as a butt for
the display of his old forensic power of derision.

‘Remember, this is a thing that can be altered and re-altered by
each successive Minister for Home Affairs. The present Minister for
Home Affairs might prefer a kilt. His successor might be a sporting
man, and he might prefer a jockey’s costume. The next successor

534 DELEGATED LEGISLATION

might have clerical tendencies, and he might prefer to see the judges
robed in clerical costume. Where is this thing to end?’ 1

In the face of ridicule of this kind, and of the united opposition of
Bench and Bar, any idea of abolishing the wig and gown had per-
force to be dropped. The legal and constitutional arguments against
the transfer to the Minister of the rule-making authority were ex-
pounded with consummate ability by Senator S. L. Brown, K.C. 2
Though he failed to carry the Senate with him in his amendments to ■
the rule-making sections, he did secure that Parliament’s negative
power of annulment within one month should be altered to a positive
power of approval without limit of time. This section finally read as
follows: ‘No rules of court made under this Act shall come into
operation unless and until they have been laid before each House of
the Oireachtas and have been approved by resolution of each such
House.’

Senator Brown’s successful championship of the constitutional
rights of Parliament proved to be amply justified by the event. Irres-
pective of the political party in office, the bureaucracy is always in
favour of haste at the expense of discussion. On the 7th July 1926,
when the Rules of Court had not been formally made by the Minister
for Justice (Kevin O’Higgins), though the drafts had been circulated,
he attended the Senate with the request that they should pass reso-
lutions of approval of the three sets of rules, viz. Rules of the High
Court and Supreme Court, Rules of the Circuit Court, and Dis-
trict Court Rides, two days later (9th July), being the day on which
he proposed to sign them. The Senate very properly refused to
accede to this request, but on the 8th July it appointed a Select Com-
mittee to consider the Rules, and agreed to take the motions for
approval on the 22nd July. Actually, when the Senate appointed this
Committee it was not in possession of the Rules, for they were not
formally laid before the House until the 14th July. The Select-Com-
mittee reported that the Rules of the High Court and Supreme Court
should be approved in toto, but recommended that the other two sets
of Rules should be approved with certain exceptions, stating their
reasons for these exceptions. 3

On the 22nd July 1926 the Senate met to consider motions which
had been handed in pursuant to the Report of the Select Committee.
The Rules of the High Court and Supreme Court were formally
approved, after amendments had been discussed and rejected, dealing

1 Senate Debates, ii, 416. 8 Ibid., ii, 418, 631-59, 856-63, 883, 951, 1154.

3 Reports of Committees, vol. i, p. 541.

DISTRICT COURT RULES 535

with the status of the Irish language in the courts and the robes to be
worn by the judges, Senator W. B. Yeats making an earnest but
fruitless plea for a new judicial costume designed by Sir Charles
Shannon, R.A.

The District Court Rules were then formally approved, with eight
exceptions. The eight rules which were not approved were severally
put to the House, and the motion ‘That the Rule be not approved’
was carried in each case, after debate. Mr. O’Higgins stated that it
was his view, and that of the Attorney-General, that the rules must
be approved or rejected as a whole, and that the rejection of even one
rule rendered the whole corpus of rules inoperative. Lord Glenavy
did not accept this view, and in ruling against it he was fortified by an
opinion obtained, in anticipation of the situation which actually
arose, from the late Sir Lonsdale Webster, Clerk of the House of
Commons and editor of Sir Erskine May’s standard work on
parliamentary procedure. Lord Glenavy read this opinion to the
House.

‘The question he was asked was: “Whether in accordance with
British practice a motion to approve the Rules of Court, pursuant to
Section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, would be open to
amendment by way of leaving out a specified Rule or Rules, or
whether it would be incumbent on the Senate to pass such Rules in
globoT ’

‘This is his answer: “My answer . . . would be that a motion to
approve a set of Rules would be open to amendment by way of leav-
ing out a specified Rule or Rules. The effect of an amendment or
amendments being agreed to would be that the final question would
be for approval of the Rules, other than those omitted by amendment
or amendments.” n

The District Court Rules were approved in globo by the Dail on
the 21st July 1926, the Chairman of that House having ruled that the
motion of approval was not open to amendment by omitting a speci-
fied rule or rules. The Government then took a step which it is
difficult to understand on any view of procedure. They published the
District Court Rules as signed by the Minister, with an asterisk
directing attention to a footnote in which it was stated that Rules 20,
24, 36, 93, 95, 151, 171, and 180 had not been approved by the Senate.
If Lord Glenavy was right, these eight rules should have been
omitted, as they were inoperative. If the Minister for Justice and the
Attorney-General were right, then the whole corpus of rules was
1 Senate Debates, vii, 1101, 1102.

536 DELEGATED LEGISLATION

rendered inoperative by the Senate’s action in refusing to approve
eight of them, and the rules should not have been published at all.

The Rules of the Circuit Court had a chequered history. They
were made on the 13th July 1926 by the Minister for Justice, laid on
the table of the Senate on the following day, and laid on the table
of the Dail on the 20th July. In order to rush them through before
Parliament adjourned for the summer recess, a motion to approve
the Rules was taken in the Dail on the very day that they had been
tabled in that House ; but they met with such hostile criticism from
all quarters of the House that the Minister withdrew the motion on
the following day. The parallel motion in the Senate was likewise
postponed (22nd July 1926).

It is pertinent to point out that, but forJhe fight put up by Senator
Brown which resulted in his amendment to the Courts of Justice Bill,
these Rules would pretty certainly have come into force, in spite of
their imperfections. Under the Bill as it left the Ddil, the two Houses
were merely given a power of annulment, and that power had to be
exercised within one month. The Rules were tabled at the end of July,
when both Houses were on the point of adjourning for the summer;
and they did not reassemble until the following November.

Nearly two years later, on the 25th April 1928, a second set of
Rules of the Circuit Court was laid on the table of both Houses. This
second set was referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, con-
sisting of six lawyers (drawn from both branches of the profession),
three business men, and one member of the Labour Party. This
Committee produced a long and unanimous Report, dated the 26th
June 1928, and signed by Lord Glenavy as chairman. The Report was
completely hostile to the rules. The Committee was ‘satisfied that if
these Rules are approved they will so materially increase the duties
of the Judge, the County Registrar and the official staff as to make a
substantial increase in their number inevitable, while the added
complication, expense and delay will be practically prohibitive for
poorer litigants’ (paragraph 4). The Committee concluded that ‘the
difficulties and defects which had already developed [in the working
of the new Circuit Court system] would be materially aggravated by
the adoption of these Rules ’ (paragraph 13). 1

In the face of this Report, the Government made no attempt to
secure the approval of Parliament for this second set of Circuit Court
Rules. The Joint Committee, not content with mere negation, had
suggested lines on which the rules should be framed, based largely
1 Reports of Committees, vol. ii, p. 251.

RULES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT 537 ..

on the County Court Rules of pre-Treaty days, which were actually
being used by the Circuit. Courts, mutatis mutandis, in default of rules
of their own. In the course of tune, yet a third set of rules was pro-
duced, drafted in conformity with the suggestions of the Joint Com-
mittee. These rules were laid before the Dail on the 27th February'
1930, and before the Senate on the 12th March following. The
Minister for Justice (Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney, K.C.) moved the
motion of approval on that day in the Dail ; but it happened that a
Joint Committee was at that time considering the whole operation
of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, and it was objected from all
quarters of the House that these rules ought not to be promulgated
until that Committee had presented its Report. The Minister was
accordingly obliged to withdraw' his motion. The Committee in ques-
tion reported on the 6th November 1930 and the long-delayed
Rules of the Circuit Court were formally approved by resolution of
the Dail on the 22nd October 1931, and of the Senate on the 4th
November 1931 — more than five years after the Government’s abor-
tive effort to obtain parliamentary' approval for the first set of rules
within a few' days of their being signed.

The parliamentary' history of the Rules of Court has been recounted
at some length because of its importance in connection with this sub-
ject of delegated legislation. It shows that, if Parliament insists on
reserving to itself the ultimate pow’er of control by means of positive
resolution, that pow'er can and will be used in cases w’here the public
interest justifies its exercise. The fact that such pow'er w r as available
in the case of the Rules of Court was due to the Senate, and in particu-
lar to Senator Brown, w'hose efforts in this connection were perhaps
not the least of the services of that remarkable man to the Irish
people.

Hitherto we have been considering what we have designated as
the second class of delegated legislation, namely, that in w'hich a
positive resolution of approval is necessary' for ratification. A curious
sub-division of this class is provided by the State Lands Act, 1924,
and the State Lands (Workhouses) Act, 1930; in these cases a positive
resolution was possible, but not necessary. Under Article 1 1 of the
Constitution all the former Crown Lands were vested in the State,
and these two Acts enabled leases or licences to be granted in respect
of such lands. The Act of 1924 (Section 2) provided that a statement
of every' proposed lease or licence should be laid before each House,
and then proceeded as follows :

1 Reports of Committees, vol. iii, p. 181.

538 DELEGATED LEGISLATION

‘No lease or licence shall be made or granted under this Act until
either —

‘(a) each House of the Oireachtas has by resolution authorized the
making or granting of such lease or licence either with or without
modification of any of the proposed provisions of such lease or
licence, or

‘(h) the expiration of whichever of the following periods shall be
the longer, that is to say :

‘ (i) twenty-one days after the first day on which either House of the
Oireachtas shall sit next after the statement in accordance with this
section shall have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, or

‘ (ii) twelve days on which either House of the Oireachtas shall
have sat after the said statement shall have been so laid before the
Houses.’

The provisions in the Act of 1930 (Section 4) were somewhat simi-
lar. The statements of these proposed leases or licences were periodi-
cally laid on the table in batches, and they must have amounted in
the aggregate to thousands. But no positive resolution was ever
moved under paragraph (a). Few can have read this singularly in-
volved clause a sufficient number of times to discover what it really
meant.

Another variant in this second class of delegated legislation is pro-
vided by the Control of Imports Act, 1934. This was an Act designed
to further the industrial policy of Mr. De Valera’s Administration,
by enabling the Executive Council, by means of orders termed quota
orders, to prohibit or restrict the importation of any classes of goods.
The Bill as passed by the Ddil contained two very bad defects, which
were remedied in the Senate at the instance of Senators Counihan,
Johnson, Douglas, and others. There was a provision (Section 4)
that every quota order should cease to have effect at the end of six
months from its having been made, unless approved by resolution of
the Dail within the six months, the Senate being omitted ; and the
section was so drafted as to make it possible for the Government (in
the not very likely event of their wishing so to do) to dispense with
parliamentary approval by making a fresh quota order, dealing with
the same class of goods, shortly before the original order was due to
expire, and so causing a fresh six months’ period to run. By means
of amendments carried in the Senate and agreed to by the Ddil, the
co-equal rights of the Senate in regard to this delegated legislation
were restored, and the section was made water-tight against possible
abuse.

QUOTA ORDERS AND OTHERS 539

In the twenty-six months which elapsed between the passage of the
Control of Imports Act and the abolition of the Senate, no less than
155 quota orders were promulgated by the Executive — an average of
six a month. In view of the allegation so often made by the ill-
informed that the Senate adopted an obstructive attitude towards
the Government’s general policy, it is as well to place the fact on
record that in no single instance was the appropriate motion of
approval refused, or even seriously opposed, in that House. The
debates on these motions in the Senate were on a level generally
higher than the corresponding debates in the Dail ; they provided the
occasion for a public interchange of views between the Minister for
Industry and Commerce on the one hand and Senator Douglas and
other business men on the other; and they had their value in contri-
buting to an informed public opinion on the industrial policy of the
Government.

The third class of delegated legislation consists of cases in which
the Executive Council, or a Minister of State, is empowered by statute
to make Orders, but all such Orders require to be confirmed by Act
of Parliament. The main sphere of this class of legislation lies in
matters of local or specialized interest, such as piers, harbours, and
pilotage. A number of such Orders were made during the existence
of the Senate, and subsequently ratified by statutes termed Provi-
sional Order Confirmation Acts. The only case of general importance
is the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act, 1932, enacted on the
23rd July 1932 by Mr. De Valera’s Government and designed to
serve as a weapon in the so-called ‘economic war’ with Great
Britain. Under that Act the Executive Council were accorded the
widest powers to impose customs and excise duties by Order, and the
saving provision was as follows: ‘Every Order made by the Execu-
tive Council under this section shall have statutory effect upon the
making thereof and, unless such Order either is confirmed by Act of
the Oireachtas within eight months after the making thereof or is an
Order merely revoking wholly an Order previously made under this
section, such Order shall cease to have statutory effect at the expira-
tion of such eight months but without prejudice to the validity of
anything previously done thereunder.’ In all, 106 Emergency Imposi-
tion of Duties Orders were made under this Act up to the time of
the abolition of the Senate. As the Bills by which they were confirmed
were all certified as Money Bills, the theoretical power of the Senate
in regard to these Orders was much less than it was in the case of the
Quota Orders under the Control of Imports Act already referred to.

540 DELEGATED LEGISLATION

The fourth and last class of delegated legislation is partly akin to
the first and partly to the second, in that, of ,1 the four statutes in the
class, two provide for a negative power of annulment and two for a
positive power of approval ; but the class as a whole must be regarded
as a separate one because of the restricted power accorded to the
Senate. The statutes in question are : Ddil Eireann Loans and Funds
Act, 1924; Garda Siochdna (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923;
Superannuation and Pensions Acts, 1923 and 1929. All of these,
except the second, had been, before enactment, certified Money Bills,
and the three which were passed in 1923 and 1924 were rushed
through the Senate without adequate discussion.

In the case of the Dail Eireann Loans and Funds Act, 1924
(Section 2), and the Garda Siochana (Temporary Provisions) Act,
1923 (Section 8), there is an annulment clause, which is couched in
the following terms: ‘Every Order made under this section shall be
laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it
is made, and if a resolution is passed by Ddil Eireann within the next
subsequent twenty-one days on which Dail Eireann has sat annulling
such Order, such Order shall be annulled accordingly, but without
prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such
Order, and any recommendation in respect of such Order which
shall be made by Seanad Eireann within such twenty-one days shall
be duly considered by Ddil Eireann.’ The Orders referred to in these
two Acts dealt respectively with the disposal of the Republican Loan
raised prior to the Treaty of 1921 and with the pay and allowances
of the newly established Police Force or Civic Guard; they were
thus concerned exclusively with money matters.

The Superannuation and Pensions Act, 1923 (Section 5), provided
for the grant, by Ministerial Order, of pensions to certain members
of the former Royal Irish Constabulary who had resigned or been
dismissed in stated circumstances. The amending Act of’ 1929
(Section 3) made similar provision for the widows of such persons. In
both cases, a positive resolution of approval by the Ddil was neces-
sary, the clause being in the following terms : ‘No Order made under
this section shall come into operation unless and until it has been
laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and approved by resolu-
tion of Ddil Eireann, and when considering any such resolution Dail
Eireann shall duly consider any recommendation which shall have
been previously made by Seanad Eireann in respect of such Order.’
There was a similar clause (Section 9) in the Garda Siochdna (Tem-
porary Provisions) Act, 1923, already referred to, with respect

ATTEMPT TO LIMIT SEANTE’S POWERS 541

to regulations as to the .pensions of the newly established Civic
Guard.

The point of constitutional interest in the cases of this fourth class
is, how far was it justifiable to import into the statutory safeguards,
positive or negative, surrounding this delegated legislation the provi-
sions of the Constitution regarding Money Bills, whereby the legis-
lative authority lay with the Dail and the Senate was confined to the
making of recommendations? As has been indicated, the point passed
unnoticed in the three Acts mentioned which were passed in 1923 and
1924, but in the latter year the Government sent up to the Senate a
Bill to establish the Civic Guard on a permanent basis (GSrda
Sfochana Bill, 1924). It was not, of course, certified as a Money Bill.
Section 7 of the Bill provided that the Minister for Justice, with the
sanction of the Minister for Finance, might by order regulate the pay
and allowances of the said new Force, including the conditions appli-
cable thereto;- and the section went on: ‘Every Order made under
this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon
as may be after it is made and if a resolution is passed by Dail
•fiireann within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which Dail
fiireann has sat annulling such Order, such Order shall be annulled
accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything pre-
viously done under such Order, and any recommendations in respect
of such Order which shall be made by Seanad fiireann within the
said twenty-one days shall be duly considered by Dail fiireann.’ In
Select Committee of the Senate (1 1th June 1924) this was altered to
the common form, whereby each House had the right to annul. 1 On
the Report Stage of the Bill in the House itself the point was argued
at considerable length between the Minister for Justice (Kevin
O’Higgins) on the one hand and Lord Glenavy, Senator O’Farrell
(for the Labour Party), Senator Brown, and other Senators on the
other. 2 Lord Glenavy examined the matter at great length from the
legal aspect, and showed that this particular proposal had no warrant
in the Constitution and was, in fact, an invasion of the legislative
authority of the Senate, The reluctance of the Government to concede
full legislative co-equality to the Upper House was very perceptible
in Mr. O’Higgins’s reply. He stressed the non-representative character
of the Senate, hinted that the spirit of the Constitution was being
broken by the amendment, and said that, if such regulations as these
were unreasonably annulled by the Senate, the Government would
embody the subject-matter of them in a Bill, which would, he con-

1 Reports of Committees, vol. i, p. 401 . 2 Senate Debates, iii, 276-294.

542 DELEGATED LEGISLATION

tended, inevitably be certified as a Money Bill. To this argument
Senator Guinness retorted, very sensibly, ‘But in that case you would
be acting quite regularly : in this case it would be irregular.’

Senator Brown stated that his objection was that the proposal of
the Government introduced ‘into what I might call delegated legisla-
tion, that is, legislation through an Order of the Minister, a limit to
the power of the Senate that would not exist if it were a Bill that had
to pass from this House. With great respect, I do not agree with the
Minister that the regulations, which under section 7 may contain
conditions of service as well as mere rates of pay, would possibly be
considered or certified as a Money Bill.’ 1

No member of the Senate supported Mr. O ’Higgins’s view in the
debate, and the Bill was returned to the Dail with the clause as
amended by the Select Committee of the Senate. A similar amend-
ment was made to Section 8 (dealing with the pensions of the Force),
but in this case a resolution of both Houses was necessary for annul-
ment.

When the Bill came before the Dail for consideration of the
Senate’s amendments, they were accepted on the motion of Mr.
O’Higgins. He stated that he took this course solely because the
temporary Act was about to expire, and if the permanent measure
was not passed into law the Civic Guard would cease to exist. He
reiterated his opinion that the Senate had, by its action, contravened
the spirit of the Constitution, but no member of the Dail supported
him in this view. On the contrary, two of the ablest members of that
House, Mr. Thomas Johnson (the Leader of the Opposition) and
Mr. Darrell Figgis, expressed the contrary view, and expressed it
with considerable force. 2

In later years, when Mr. De Valera’s followers used as an argument
for the abolition of the Senate the allegation that Senators had always
shown subservience during Mr. Cosgrave’s Administration, those
who had been associated with the Senate when Mr. De Valera was
in the wilderness recalled such sharp conflicts as this.

The question did not arise again until it occurred in connection
with the Superannuation and Pensions Bill, 1929. This was a certified
Money Bill, which purported to amend the Act with the same title
passed in 1923. The relative clause in this Bill has already been
quoted above. A recommendation to restore the common form was
adopted on the motion of Senator. Johnson, who was thus quite
consistent in maintaining his previous attitude when Leader of the
1 Senate Debates, iii, 286, 287. 2 Dail Debates, viii, 475-85.

SENATOR JOHNSON’S CONSISTENCY 543

Opposition in the other House. 1 This recommendation, however, was
rejected by the Dail on the following day without debate. 2 It is in-
teresting to note, in conclusion, that this was the only recommenda-
tion made by the Senate to a Money Bill and rejected by the Dail
during the whole course of Mr. Cosgrave’s Administration.

1 Senate Debates, xii, 461-70.

2 Ddil Debates, xxix, 1780.

CHAPTER XXXII

MONEY BILLS

Constitutional provisions regarding Money Bills — Indifferent draft-
ing of Article 38 — The Senate's interpretation of its functions — Form
of recommendations and procedure adopted — Beneficial results —
Educative Second Reading debates — The Finance Bill — The Appro-
priation Bill — Three-day period for demanding a Committee of Privi-
leges found to be too short — Increase of the period to seven days —
Other constitutional changes — Total number of Money Bills — Statistics
of recommendations — Failure to pass the Dail Supreme Court ( Pen-
sions ) Bill — Government's use of Senate's power of recommendation —
Other examples of its value to the Government — Special experience of
Senators — Co-operation with the Dail — A Senate recommendation
accepted by the Dail against the Government — Effect of the change of
Government — The Import Duties Bill — Safeguards proposed by' the
Senate — A Committee of Privileges demanded only once — Requisition
by Dail members — The Land Purchase ( Guarantee Fund) Bill-Diffi-
culties of procedure — The Chairman's three alternatives — His decision
— Mr. De Valera's accusation — The decision challenged by the Govern-
ment party — The ruling approved by the Senate Committee of Pro-
cedure — The Committee's Report approved by the House — The Dail
requisition for a Committee of Privileges — Representative character of
the signatories — Mr. De Valera's attitude — The Dail nominations to
the Committee — The Senate nominations — The case made by Senator
Douglas — The Committee's decision — A considered judgement not re-
quired by the Constitution — The Second Reading in the Senate —
Senator Brown's views — Recommendations made — Tactics of the
Government party — Constitutional requirements — The Bill returned to
the Dail — The recommendations rejected — An unpleasant episode.

Th e provisions regarding Money Bills as contained in the Constitu-
tion before it was amended are to be found in Articles 35 and 38. It

544

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS 545

is accordingly necessary to quote the former in full and also
the relevant portion of the latter.

‘Article 35. Dail fiireann shall in relation to the subject matter of
Money Bills as hereinafter defined have legislative authority exclu-
sive of Seanad fiireann.

‘A Money Bill means a Bill which contains only provisions dealing
with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition,
repeal, remission, alteration or regulation of taxation; the imposition
for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on
public moneys or the variation or repeal of any such charges ; supply;
the appropriation, receipt, custody, issue or audit of accounts of
public money ; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment
thereof ; subordinate matters incidental to those subjects or any of
them. In this definition the expressions “taxation”, “public money”
• and “loan” respectively do not include any taxation, money or loan
raised by local authorities or bodies for local purposes.

‘The Chairman of Dail fiireann shall certify any Bill which in
his opinion is a Money Bill to be a Money Bill, but, if within three
days after a Bill has been passed by D&il fiireann two-fifths of the
members of either House by notice in writing addressed to the Chair-
man of the House of which they are members so require, the question
whether the Bill is or is not a Money Bill shall be referred to a
Committee of Privileges consisting of three members elected by each
House with a Chairman who shall be the senior Judge of the Supreme
Court able and willing to act, and who, in the case of an equality of
votes, but not otherwise, shall be entitled to vote. The decision of the
Committee on the question shall be final and conclusive.’

‘Article 38. Every Bill initiated in and passed by Dail fiireann shall
be sent to Seanad fiireann and may, unless it be a Money Bill, be
f amended in Seanad fiireann and Dail fiireann shall consider any
such amendment; . . . every Money Bill shall be sent to Seanad
fiireann for its recommendations and at a period not longer than
twenty-one days after it shall have been sent to Seanad fiireann, it
shall be returned to Ddil fiireann, which may pass it, accepting or
rejecting all or any of the recommendations of Seanad fiireann, and
as so passed or if not returned within such period of twenty-one days
shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses *

It is unfortunate that Article 38 was so indifferently drafted as to
leave the precise functions of the Senate in regard to Money Bills
without positive definition. Article 35 states that the Dail is to have
legislative authority exclusive of the Senate in relation to Money
2n

546 MONEY BILLS

Bills, and, taken by itself, seems not to contemplate the sending of
Money Bills to the Senate for any purpose. Article 38, however, goes
on to provide that a Money Bill, after it has been passed by the Ddil,
is to be sent to the Senate ; the Senate may not amend the Bill, but
may make recommendations in regard to it ; and the Bill must be
returned to the Ddil within twenty-one days. After the Bill has been
returned, the Ddil ‘may’ pass it; so that the Article prescribes a pro-
cedure that can hardly have been intended, namely, that a Money
Bill is to be passed by the Ddil twice : once before it has been sent
to the Senate and again after it has been received back from the
Senate, and after, possibly, all the recommendations made by that
House have been rejected. The Article nowhere states, in terms, that
the function of the Senate is confined to the making of recommenda-
tions, or that Money Bills are not to be passed by that House. But
this is left to be inferred from the phrase ‘and as so passed or if not
returned within such period of twenty-one days shall be deemed to
have been passed by both Houses’. This seems to imply that the
Senate can do nothing with a Money Bill except make recommenda-
tions to it. When the Bill has been returned, the Ddil may pass it a
second time. If it does so, the Bill is ‘deemed to have been passed
by both Houses’ ; similarly if the Senate fails to return the Bill within
the prescribed period. *

The Attorney-General (Hugh Kennedy, K.C., afterwards Chief
Justice) was of opinion that the functions of the Upper House in
regard to Money Bills were strictly limited to the making of recom-
mendations. But the Senate drew up its Standing Orders in accor-
dance with the view that Money Bills should be dealt with, so far as
possible, on the same basis as other Bills. Every Money Bill was given
a Second Reading, when a general discussion might take place upon
it; a Third (Committee) Stage and a Fourth (Report) Stage, when v
recommendations (instead of amendments) might be proposed ; and
a Fifth Stage, when the Bill was finally passed. It was then duly
certified and returned, within twenty-one days, to the Ddil, with a
list of the recommendations (if any) that had been made in regard
to it, or a certificate that no recommendations had been made. The
recommendations might be of a general character, such as: ‘The
Senate recommends that the provisions of section 9 of the Bill [the
Finance Bill, 1923] regarding the exemption of Charities be extended
so as to apply the exemption to income derived by Charities from
land and house property.’ More usually, however, they took the
form of suggesting the addition or deletion of specific words or

ADVANTAGES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED 547

figures. The Dail, for its part, ignored the constitutional provision
regarding the second passing of the Bill. It considered the recom-
mendations and accepted or rejected them. If an accepted recom-
mendation was of a general character, such as that quoted above, an
amendment was drafted in accordance with it. The recommendations
that had been accepted were made the subject of substantive amend-
ments, which were inserted in the Bill. A message was dispatched to
the Senate stating which recommendations had been accepted and
which rejected, and the Bill was sent for the Royal Assent.

The procedure laid down by the Senate proved, in the light of
experience, to be beneficial alike to the House itself, to the Govern-
ment, and to the public at large. It would have been impracticable to
propose recommendations of value in the absence of a Second Read-
ing debate, in which these could be first adumbrated and the sense
of the House taken on them in a general way, after the views of the
Minister in charge of the Bill had been heard. Moreover, a number
of Money Bills reached the Senate annually which, irrespective of
whether any recommendations might be proposed, almost invariably
provided the occasion for a first-class debate which had its value in
moulding public opinion. For example, the Senate was precluded
from discussing the annual Budget, but the Budget was subsequently
embodied in the Finance Bill, and this always gave rise to an ex-
tended Second Reading debate, in which the whole financial and
fiscal policy of the Government was passed in review. These debates
were frequently on a higher plane than those on the same subject
in the Dail, and points of view were sometimes put forward which,
in the other House, had found expression either imperfectly or
not at all. As a direct result of the discussion on Second Reading,
recommendations were not infrequently proposed, either with the
consent or on the direct initiative of the Government; and the results
were subsequently embodied in the Bill.

The case of the annual Appropriation Bill was similar. This was a
type of Bill which rarely permitted of any recommendations being
proposed in regard to it; but the Second Reading debate on it in the
Senate ranged over the whole field of governmental administration.
The result was a satisfactory ventilation of opinion on matters of
general interest and importance.

Before some further considerations are dealt with on this subject
of Money Bills, it is desirable to make some reference to a change
made in Article 35 by way of constitutional amendment. It will be
recalled that, under the third paragraph of that Article, two-fifths of

548 MONEY BILLS

the members of either House might require the question whether a
Bill which had been certified as a Money Bill was in fact a Money
Bill to be referred to a Committee of Privileges ; but that this action
had to be taken within three days after the Bill had been passed by
the Dail. Experience showed that this was an inconveniently short
period. The Chairman of the Dail did not issue his certificate until
the Bill had been finally passed by the Dail, because of course.it was
not possible to state with certainty that the Bill came within the '
definition of a Money Bill until the possibility of amendment was at
an end. But such a Bill might be (and very often was) passed at a
time when the Senate was not sitting, or on a Friday, when the period
of grace would be Saturday, Sunday and Monday. In such circum-
stances it would obviously not be feasible, if the occasion arose, for
the requisite action to be taken within the period prescribed.

The point was considered by the Joint Committee of both Houses
set up in 1928 to review the constitution and powers of the Senate; 1
and, as a result of one of their recommendations, Article 35 was
amended by the Constitution (Amendment No. 12) Act, 1930, passed
on the 24th March 1930. Under the Article as so amended the period
of three days was increased to seven, with the important proviso that,
if the Bill was returned by the Senate to the Ddil within the seven
days, the right of members of either House to demand a Committee
of Privileges upon it was thereby terminated. The Committee of
Privileges might be required by two-fifths of the members of either
House by notice in writing as before ; but the Senate was given the
additional power of demanding it by a formal resolution of the House,
passed by a majority of the members present and voting at a sitting
at which not less than thirty members were present. If a Committee
of Privileges, duly set up, failed to report its decision within twenty-
one days of the Bill having been sent to the Senate, the decision of
the Chairman of the D6il was to become final.

During the thirteen and a half years’ existence of the Senate it re-
ceived from the Dail 110 Money Bills and 489 non-Money Bills: 2
that is to say, Money Bills were about one-fifth of the total. This may
seem rather a large proportion, but it must be remembered that in
every year at least one Appropriation Bill, Finance Bill, and Central
Fund Bill were sent up — sometimes more than one — and these were
all necessarily Money Bills. Alterations in Customs duties, supple-

1 Reports of Committees, vol. ii, p. 273.

2 Statistical tables with regard to Money Bills will be found in Appendices
D and E.

COMPARATIVE FIGURES 549

mentary to the annual Budget, had to be the subject of separate Bills,
and others dealing with such matters as superannuation and pensions
were of frequent occurrence. Mr. Cosgrave’s Administration, which
lasted nine years, was responsible for sixty-five Money Bills, an
average of seven a year ; and from the date of Mr. De Valera’s advent
to power until the abolition of the Senate (four and a half years)
there were forty-five such Bills, an average of ten a year. The higher
average in the latter case is principally due to the fact that the tariff
policy of Mr. De Valera’s Administration necessitated a succession
of Bills dealing with import duties.

Of Mr. Cosgrave’s sixty-five Money Bills, recommendations were
made to nine. The total number of recommendations was eighteen,
of which all but one were accepted. Recommendations were made to
ten of Mr. De Valera’s forty-five Bills, and the total number of
recommendations was thirty-eight. Of these, eighteen were accepted
and. twenty rejected. The difference in the figures of the respective
Administrations is a reflection of the political conditions of the times.

In only one case throughout the whole period did the Senate fail
to pass a Money Bill. This was the Dail Supreme Court (Pensions)
Bill, 1925, which gave pensions to the Republican Judges of the
Supreme Court which had functioned under the authority of the
D£il prior to the Treaty. The Bill was given a Second Reading, with-
out discussion, on the 7th April 1925. The Chairman (Lord Glenavy)
pointed out that, if no further steps were taken, the Bill would become
law automatically after twenty-one days, and remarked that that
might ‘not be a great catastrophe’. No order was made for the Com-
mittee Stage, and the Bill became law after the prescribed period.

In view of the provision in the Constitution that the Dail should
have exclusive legislative authority in relation to Money Bills, there
is an element of humour in the fact that, upon occasion, the Govern-
ment of the day used the Senate’s power of recommendation in order
to get the Senate to ‘recommend’ to the Ddil the rectification of mis-
takes which had escaped notice during the successive stages of the
Bill in the Lower House. This happened, for example, in the case of
the Appropriation Bill of 1923, the Army Pensions Bill of the same
year, and the Land Bond Bill of 1933.

The Senate’s consideration of Money Bills proved useful to the
Government and to the Ddil in other and equally unexpected ways.
It sometimes happened that an important amendment moved to a
Finance Bill in the Dail had to be refused by the Minister as a matter
of caution, because his advisers had not had time to examine it in all

550 MONEY BILLS

its implications. But when the Bill came before the Senate, the
Minister welcomed a recommendation in the same terms as the
amendment, so that the Bill might be returned to the Ddil and the
matter be reconsidered there. A case in point arose in connection with
the Finance Bill, 1928, when Mr. Blythe, the Minister for Finance,
speaking in the Senate said : ‘I am very frequently in the position of
opposing amendments in the Senate, and when they are carried,
recommending the Dail to pass them. I am in the opposite position
now. I opposed this particular amendment in the Ddil and secured
its defeat. I am asking the Senate to pass it and to let the Ddil have
an opportunity of reconsidering the matter.’ 1

Two similar instances occurred in connection with the Finance
Bill, 1929, when two important recommendations, which had been
refused by the Government when put forward as amendments in the
Ddil, were accepted by that House on the motion of the Minister,
who had by that time been able to give further thought to the subject-
matter. 2

There were also occasions when the special experience of Senators
in banking, finance, and administration enabled them to raise points
which had not been adverted to in the other House. If the points
were ones of substance and the arguments adduced in their favour
commended themselves to the Minister, he introduced appropriate
recommendations in the Senate on the Report Stage, and got them
accepted by the Ddil. This happened, for example, in the case of the
Finance Bill, 1926 (Mr. Blythe), and the Industrial Credit Bill, 1933
(Mr. MacEntee). On other occasions, a point of relatively minor
importance which passed ^unnoticed in the Ddil, but which affected
adversely a small group or class of the community, was brought up
in the Senate and the hardship removed. Thus, the Finance Bill, 1925,
imposed an excise duty of ten shillings on dogs ; a recommendation
was proposed in the Senate, and accepted, exempting from this duty
dogs owned and kept by the blind or purblind for the purpose of
acting as guides.

On the whole, it would be true to say that during Mr. Cosgrave’s
Administration the co-operation of the Senate was welcomed by the
Ddil in regard to Money Bills. An incident in connection with the
Finance Bill of 1924 is noteworthy as showing the independence of
the Ddil at that time in relation to the Government. Under the then
existing law persons who owned the houses in which they lived were
allowed to deduct one-sixth of the income-tax payable, in order to
1 Senate Debates, x, 926, 927. 2 Ddil Debates, xxxi, 971-4.

THE SENATE AND SAFEGUARDS 551

meet the cost of repairs. The Bill proposed to abolish this relief. A
recommendation made by the Senate sought to restore it. When the
Bill was returned to the Dail, in spite of the strong opposition of Mr.
Cosgrave (who was both President and Minister for Finance), the
Dail accepted the recommendation, which was advocated by such
prominent supporters of the Government as General Mulcahy. Mr.
Cosgrave at once accepted the position and proposed an amendment
to give effect to the Dail’s decision. 1

In the case of Mr, De Valera’s Administration, it is necessary to
draw a distinction. In the numerous Bills which implemented the
Government’s industrial policy, the Minister for Finance and the
Minister for Industry and Commerce showed a creditable willingness
to discuss with Senator Jameson, Senator Douglas, and other indus-
trialists across the floor of the House the incidence of the proposed
new taxation over the wide range of commodities involved, and, so
far as possible, to meet their points of view. In regard to the more
highly controversial legislation the same spirit of accommodation
was hardly to be expected ; but even here the Senate was able to pro-
cure safeguards and effect improvements. A case in point is the
Emergency Imposition of Duties Bill, 1932. Mr. De Valera had with-
held payment of the Land Annuities; the British Government had
imposed special import duties to enable it to collect the money; and
this Bill purported to give the Irish Free State Government power
to take reprisals. It was the first shot on the Irish side in the so-called
economic war. The powers sought were frankly dictatorial, since the
Executive Council was accorded the widest authority to impose
tariffs by Order; every such Order was given immediate statutory
effect, and remained in force for a period of eight months without
requiring to be confirmed by Act of Parliament. By passing the Bill
in the form in which it left the Ddil, that House had virtually sur-
rendered to the Executive its constitutional power of fiscal control.
Before the eight months’ period had expired the original Order could
be revoked and a new one substituted, from the date of which a fresh
eight months’ period would start to run; or an amending Order
could be made, again with a fresh period. The Senate saved the Dail
from itself by proposing, on the motion of Senator Brown, recom-
mendations which provided adequate safeguards against possible
abuses of this kind ; and another which stipulated that if, when any
such Order was made, the Dail stood adjourned for more than ten
days, it should be summoned by the Chairman on receipt of a requisi-
1 Dail Debates, viii, 1576-1602.

552 MONEY BILLS

tion to that effect signed by a majority of the members. These recom-
mendations were accepted by the Government and the Ddil, but two
others were refused; and the Ddil debate on the Senate’s recom-
mendations extended over a period of nearly nine hours, duringwhich
the closure was applied.

It was not until towards the close of the Senate’s life that a Com-
mittee of Privileges was demanded under Article 35 of the Constitu-
tion, and the requisition came, not from the Senate but from the
Ddil. The circumstances were so extraordinary as to merit exposition
in some detail. The Land Purchase (Guarantee Fund) Bill, 1935, was
passed by the Dail after 10 p.m. on Wednesday, 11th December
1935, the Senate having adjourned until next day some hours earlier.
Immediately after the Bill had been passed, the Chairman of the Ddil,
whose ability, experience, and impartiality were unquestioned, certi-
fied it to be a Money Bill, and it was forthwith sent to the Senate. The
Senate Standing Orders provided for a minimum interval of three
days between the receipt of a Bill from the Ddil and its appearance
on the Order Paper, but this provision did not apply to Money Bills.
The Bill was accordingly placed on the printed Order Paper for the
following day for its Second Reading, together with the text of a
motion which had been received from the Government Whip, the
purpose of which was to enable the remaining Stages to be taken and
and the Bill passed into law on that day.

It is as well here to recall the provisions of Article 35 of the Con-
stitution, as amended in 1930, so far as they are relevant to the present
case. A Committee of Privileges might be set up on the written requi-
sition of two-fifths of the members of either House, made within
seven days of the Bill being sent to the Senate ; but if the Senate
returned the Bill to the Ddil within the seven days, the power to
demand a Committee of Privileges was at an end. Under the Ddil
Standing Orders the members of that House were given only three
days, instead of seven, within which to present a requisition.

As soon as the Bill had been certified, steps were taken in the Ddil
to prepare such a requisition. The fact quickly became known
throughout the Parliament Building, and it was reported in the three
Dublin morning newspapers the next day. Of course, the obtaining
of the signatures of sixty-two members at a time when the Ddil was
not sitting was not a matter which could be done quickly; and some
time necessarily had to elapse before the requisition could be pre-
sented. But until it had been presented the Chairman of the Senate
could have no official knowledge of it.

THE LAND PURCHASE BILL, 1935 553

It had not been so presented when the Senate met the day after the
Bill had left the Dail, and the Chairman had to deal with an Order
Paper on which the first item was the Second Stage of the Bill and
the second item was a Government motion to enable the Bill to be
passed into law forthwith. He had three courses open to him :

(а) To allow the Second Stage and the motion to take the remain-
ing Stages to be taken, if the House so decided. The objection to this
course was that it would have been theoretically possible for the Bill
to have been passed by the Senate and returned to the Dail the same
day, before a requisition could be presented by members of the Dail.
In that case, the D&il Standing Order which allowed three days for
such presentation would have been rendered nugatory, and the spirit
of Article 35 of the Constitution would have been violated.

(б) To allow the Second Stage to be taken, but to disallow the
motion for the remaining Stages. In such a case, it would have been
within the power of the Senate to reject the Bill on Second Reading.
But any Committee of Privileges that might be set up would find its
responsibility gravely increased by the knowledge that a decision that
the Bill was not a Money Bill would result in its being suspended for
eighteen months.

(c) To rule that the Second Stage could not be taken until the three
days had expired within which a requisition for a Committee of
Privileges could be demanded by members of the Dail. This would
mean merely a few days’ postponement, which could not possibly
prejudice either the Government or the Opposition.

The third course was the only one which was open to no objection,
and it was the one adopted by the Chairman. He conveyed his ruling
to the House at the opening of the sitting in a long statement which
set forth clearly the reasons for his decision. But, notwithstanding
the fact that he had safeguarded the undoubted constitutional right
of the minority in the Dd.il, Mr. De Valera, speaking in the Dail the
same evening, accused the Chairman of the Senate of being actuated
by party motives. 1

Mr. De Valera’s followers in the Senate resorted to a Standing
Order which provided that the Chairman’s ruling in such a case as
this might be referred to the Committee of Procedure on the requisi-
tion of fifteen Senators, and they handed in the necessary requisition
before the close of the sitting. It occasioned some surprise to find that
among the signatories were the three Government members of this
Committee, who were thus to sit in judgement on a case brought by

1 Dail Debates, lix, 2658.

554 MONEY BILLS

themselves. One of them was the Vice-Chairman of the Senate, who
had been in office for only twelve months. The Committee had no
difficulty in approving the Chairman’s ruling, the three Government
members dissenting. As the majority was composed of representa-
tives of all the other parties in the Senate, it was impossible for it to
be impugned on the ground of partisanship. The Report of the
Committee, which is dated the 31st December 1935, 1 was approved
by the Senate on the 14th January 1936 without a division. 2 The only
point made by the minority was that the Chairman had no right to
act except on an official intimation. But Senator O’Farrell, with
robust common sense, retorted that the case was as if the .parliamen-
tary buildings were on fire and the conflagration were approaching
the Chamber : the Chairman was aware of the fact, but only unoffi-
cially, and while he was awaiting an official intimation from the
Captain of the Guard the members were roasted alive.

On the evening of the day on which the Chairman of the Senate
delivered his ruling, the requisition for a Committee of Privileges
was duly presented by two-fifths of the members of the Dail. It was
signed by sixty-two Deputies, of whom about fifty were members of
' the Opposition and the remainder were Independents of various
kinds. The signatories were accordingly representative of the whole
of the minority in the Ddil except the Labour Party, with which the
Government party was at that time in alliance. On the following
day (13th December) Mr. De Valera asked the, D&il to approve a
motion appointing three Deputies to the Committee of Privileges,
and the three names he put forward were the Attorney-General (Mr.
Conor Maguire, K.C.), the ex-Minister for Justice (Mr. James
Geoghegan, K.C.), and the Leader of the Labour Party (Mr. William
Norton). The Bill was undoubtedly a border-line case, which turned
upon the interpretation of Irish Land Law — a very complex subject;
and it was very desirable that there should be a legal member of the
Committee who could adequately expound the minority point of
view. Hence the name of Mr. J. A. Costello, K.C., a former Attorney-
General, was proposed in substitution for that of Mr. Geoghegan.
But Mr. De Valera used his majority to secure the rejection of this
proposal. The two Government lawyers, he said, were ‘to meet any
case that may be put up’, and he thought it sufficient to say that he
had read the Bill over and over again to see whether he could find
any grounds for the minority point of view, and he had been unable
to find them. He accordingly concluded that the exercise by the

1 Reports of Committees, vol. iv, p. 465. 2 Senate Debates, xx, 1661-90.

THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES 555

minority of their constitutional right was a party manoeuvre. Pro-
fessor Thrift, of Trinity College, interrupted him with a dignified
repudiation on behalf of those for whom he spoke, but the result was
a foregone conclusion.

The levity which members of the Government party in the Dail
occasionally brought to the discussion of matters of serious import is
well illustrated by the contribution to this debate made by Mr. Hugo
Flinn, who holds the responsible position of Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for Finance. Alluding to the approaching demise of
the Senate, he said: ‘I must say this is the most cheerful funeral I
have been at for a long time. I have heard of funerals in Ireland called
sod picnics. There was a sod picnic on one occasion when a very
charming young lady went to the funeral. When she came home her
mother said, “Mary, how did you enjoy the funeral?” She replied,
“Mother, it was lovely. I sat in the car forninst the husband of the
corpse, and he squeezed my hand and said, ‘Mary, you are the belle
of the funeral.’” That is very much the spirit in which we here are
celebrating the wake of the half dead.’ 1

The matter came before the Senate on the 18th December for
the nomination of three Senators to act on the Committee of Privi-
leges. Senators Milroy, Douglas, and Brown, speaking for the majo-
rity, expressed their regret that the Ddil had seen fit to exclude any
representative of the minority in the other House, and the names of
Senators Blythe, Douglas, and O’Hanlon were proposed, being two
representatives of the Cosgrave party and one Independent. This
procedure was forced upon the Senate by the action of the Dail, and
was necessary if the decision was to be left to the casting vote of the
Chief Justice. But Mr. De Valera’s followers were not satisfied. The
Vice-Chairman (Senator Comyn, K.C.) proposed, as an amendment,
that three members of his own party be appointed. This amendment,
if carried, would have reduced the proceedings to a farce, for the
Committee of Privileges would have consisted of six members all
taking Mr. De Valera’s view, together with the Chief Justice. The
amendment was pressed to a division, but defeated.

The Committee of Privileges met in the Parliament Building on the
19th December, under the Chairmanship of the Chief Justice (the late
Mr. Hugh Kennedy, K.C.). The points developed on both sides were
of an extreme technicality, and need not be detailed here. 2 The dis-
cussion lasted for over three hours, the case that the Bill was not a

1 DM Debates, lix, 2715, 2716.

2 The published Report contains a verbatim account of the proceedings.

556 MONEY BILLS

Money Bill being put at great length by Senator Douglas, who is not
a lawyer, but who marshalled his arguments with such consummate
ability as to evoke tributes from the two lawyers on the other side.
The question at last came to a vote and, as was expected, the three
Senators voted on one side and the three Deputies on the other. The
Chairman then spoke as follows : ‘There is an even division of voting.

I do not want to state reasons. I want to say that I have been a good
deal shaken by a number of the arguments by Senator Douglas ; but
having weighed it all up — it is a decision of very great importance—

I am of opinion that this is a Money Bill.’

This was at once too much and too little. Under the Constitution,
it was not incumbent on the Chairman, when giving his casting vote,
to state the reasons for his decision. But, since he confessed that he
had been ‘a good deal shaken’ by Senator Douglas’s arguments, it is
to be regretted that he omitted to explain why they failed to carry
conviction to his mind, or why he held any arguments adduced on
the other side to be of greater cogency. A considered judgement might
have afforded valuable guidance for the future ; but a mere casting
vote, without stated reasons, rendered of little value the precedent
established by this decision.

The experience of this case showed that the period of twenty-one
days prescribed by Article 35 of the Constitution was inconveniently
short, and that a period of a month would have been preferable. The
Report of the Committee of Privileges, duly signed by the Chief '
Justice, was presented to the Chairman of each House on the 20th
December. The intervention of the Christmas holidays prevented the
Senate from meeting earlier than the 31st December, and on that day
the Bill appeared on the Order Paper for its Second Stage, followed
by a motion in the name of the Government Whip to enable the re-
maining Stages of the Bill to be taken on that day. After a prolonged
debate, the Second Reading was passed, with two dissentients — the
Vice-Chairman of the Senate and one other Government supporter;
and it was then found that the Government Whip was not in his
place to move his motion. It is possible that the action of the Vice-
Chairman and the absence of the Government Whip were due to the
fact that Mr. De Valera’s supporters had supposed that the twenty-
one-day period would expire on that day, in which case the failure of
the Government Whip to move his motion would have deprived
Senators of the power to move recommendations. Actually, the
period did not expire till midnight on the following day.

The House accordingly adjourned until next day (New Year’s Day,

PARTY MANOEUVRES 557

' 1936), when the Committee Stage of the Bill appeared on the Order
Paper, together with a motion enabling the remaining Stages to be
taken — this time in the name of a Senator belonging to the Cosgrave
party. Senator Brown, K.C., whose aloofness from anything that
savoured of party politics was as unquestioned as his eminence in the
legal profession, spoke as follows: ‘This is the most objectionable
retrospective legislation that we have had, so far, in this country. It
is the first case in which the Government, by retrospective legislation,
has made it, or intends to make it, practically impossible for a Court
to decide against the Government in a case in which the Government
itself is the defendant.’ 1 Three recommendations, designed to remove
these retrospective provisions, were moved on the Committee Stage.
These were opposed by the supporters of the Government and mem-
bers of the Labour Party, and a division was challenged on each.
There was an equality of votes in each case, the Chairman gave his
casting vote in favour, and the recommendations were declared
carried. The Committee Stage was then concluded.

It now became the object of Mr. De Valera’s supporters to prevent
the Bill, with the three recommendations, from being returned to the
Ddil. With this purpose in view they opposed the motion to enable
the remaining Stages to be taken on that day (which was the last of
the twenty-one days allowed to the Senate under the Constitution).
The voting on the motion was again equal, the Chairman gave his
casting vote in its favour, and it was declared carried. The climax of
this humiliating situation was then reached. After a debate on the
Fifth Stage, the Chairman put the final question, ‘That the Bill do
now pass,’ and the Government supporters of this Government Bill
opposed it. The Opposition rightly refused to participate in what had
degenerated into an undignified game of party tactics ; they declined
to vote for a Bill with which they thoroughly disagreed ; no division
was challenged, and the question was declared lost.

The tactics of the Government party had been based on a miscon-
ception of the constitutional position. Under Article 38 of the Con-
stitution it was mandatory on the Senate to return the Bill to the Ddil.
Accordingly, the Bill was. returned the same evening, together with a
message specifying the three recommendations made by the Seriate.
The Government presumably took the view (which was unquestion-
ably correct) that the Ddil was obliged to consider the Senate’s recom-
mendations, in spite of the failure of that House to pass the Final
Reading; for they requested the Chairman of the Ddil to summon a
1 Senate Debates , xx, 1607. .

558 MONEY BILLS

special meeting for that purpose. This meeting was held on the 15th '
January and the recommendations were rejected, on a party vote,
after a debate which lasted more than six hours.

It has seemed desirable, because of their unprecedented nature, to
recount at some length the circumstances surrounding the passage
into law of this Bill. It was the only Bill in respect of which the con-
stitutional provisions regarding a Committee of Privileges were
operated. The requisition for the Committee came, not from the
Senate, but from the minority in the D&il. Every effort was made by
Mr. De Valera and his followers in both Houses to frustrate that
minority in the exercise of their undoubted constitutional right. It
was demonstrated at the Committee, and in effect admitted by the
Chief Justice, that there were arguments of substance to support the
view that the Bill was not a Money Bill. The efforts of the Govern-
ment party to pack the Committee having failed, its members in the
Senate strove first to prevent that House from making any recom-
mendations, and then to prevent the recommendations, when made,
from being considered by the Dail. During the progress of the Bill a
ruling of the Chairman of the Senate, honestly given and subse-
quently ratified, was challenged by Mr. De Valera’s followers, and
the Chairman’s good faith was publicly impugned by Mr. De Valera
himself.

Coming, as it did, towards the close of the Senate’s life, this episode
did something to reconcile many of those associated with the Senate
from the beginning to the severance from public life which the aboli-
tion of that House entailed for them. They had built up a Second
Chamber in which political bitterness and party tactics of the baser
sort were almost unknown. Within its four walls a spirit of, good
humour, mutual accommodation, and respect for the opposite point
of view had created an atmosphere of co-operation between the
various classes which might in time have leavened the Dail and the
country at large, and without which no ordered system of society is
possible. And they had seen these wholesome things first threatened
and then gradually brought to ruin.

CHAPTER XXXIII

FORMALITIES AND MACHINERY
OF PARLIAMENT

Centrifugal tendency of the Irish Free Slate — Divergencies of pro-
cedure as compared with the overseas Dominions — The practice else-
where — Summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament —
Parliamentary sessions — Advantages of the procedure — Constitutional
requirements of Article 24 — The Governor-General's Address to both
Houses, December 1922 and October 1923 — The Governor-General
never again visits Parliament — Unfortunate practical results — No De-
bate on the Address — Absence of sessions — Consent of Senate to con-
clusion of session first sought and then disregarded— Constitutional
amendments — No robes worn by the Chairman — Method of administer-
ing parliamentary Oath — Necessity for procedure in Dai! — Procedure
in Senate — The Ddil, not the Parliament, enumerated — Language pro-
visions — No formal intimation of Royal Assent to Bills — The Casket
— The opening prayer.

In this chapter it is proposed to group together certain matters of
some general interest which are not specially technical in character.
Most of them serve to emphasize the centrifugal tendency, as regards
the British Commonwealth, of the Irish Free State from the begin-
ning, and the divergencies of procedure in its Parliament as compared
with Parliaments of the other Dominions. No criticism is offered of
these facts, which arc attributable to a number of causes that need
not be examined here ; but it would be unhistorical to ignore them.

The overseas Dominions follow fairly closely the practice of West-
minster in the matter of summoning, prorogation, and dissolution of
Parliament, these formal acts being effected by Proclamation of the
Governor-General in the name of the King. After a general election,
the new Parliament is opened in state by the Governor-General, who

559

560 MACHINERY OF PARLIAMENT

delivers a speech, in which the country’s position, internal and inter-
national, is passed in review and the Government’s proposals for .
legislation are outlined. Each Parliament is divided into sessions by
prorogation and each session is normally opened by the Governor-
General, whose speech indicates the Bills likely to be submitted in
that session.

Disregarding for the moment the special considerations that might
be held to apply in Ireland, we can see that this procedure is founded
in good sense. The pomp which surrounds the opening of Parlia-
ment, and of each session of Parliament, is no mere idle show, but
serves to invest the whole system of parliamentary government with
a certain dignity. As such, it is calculated to impress on the members
of both Houses a sense of their responsibility as legislators and on the
public at large a feeling of respect for the country’s laws.

Again, the speech of the Governor-General has the great practical
advantage of communicating to Parliament and to the nation an out-
line of the measures proposed to be enacted in a particular session.
These are very thoroughly discussed by both Houses in what is usually
called the Debate on the Address, by which the Government is kept
in touch with public opinion and as a result of which its proposals
are not infrequently modified. As this procedure occurs at least once
a year, Parliament is closely associated with the function of govern-
ment, a degree of precision is maintained in regard to its work, and
the encroachments of the bureaucracy are resisted.

Moreover, the system of yearly sessions makes for the businesslike
dispatch of the affairs of the nation. There is a definite beginning and
a definite end. Certain months become recognized as months of
session : in South Africa from January to July, in New Zealand from
July to October, and so on. Members thus know beforehand what
demands are likely to be made on their time by their parliamentary
duties.

It is clear that the Constitution intended that this procedure should
apply to the Irish Free State. Article 24 reads as follows: ‘The
Oireachtas shall hold at least one session each year. The Oireachtas
shall be summoned and dissolved by the Representative of the Crown
in the name of the King and subject as aforesaid Ddil Eireann shall
fix the date of reassembly of the Oireachtas and the date of the con-
clusion of the session of each House : Provided that the sessions of
Seanad Eireann shall not be concluded without its own consent.’

On the 6th December 1922 the Constitution came into force by
Royal Proclamation. The Ddil sat on that day, and the Senate met

GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND PARLIAMENT 561

for the first time five days later. On the 12th December members of
both Houses assembled in the Chamber of the Dail to hear an address
from the Governor-General, the Chairman of the Dail being in the
Chair. There was a minimum of ceremonial. The Governor-General
(the late Mr. T. M. Healy, K.C.) drove to the Parliament Building
from the Viceregal Lodge in a motor-car, accompanied by two aides-
de-camp. He was met by a military guard of honour, a bugle sounded
the salute, and he entered the precincts. Addressing the members, he
read a Message from the King, and then delivered a speech, in which
he referred to the historic occasion and detailed the legislative pro-
posals of the Government. The Labour Party officially boycotted the
Joint Sitting. 1 Subsequently, there was a Debate on the Address in
both Houses.

On the 9th August 1923 Parliament was dissolved by Proclamation
of the Governor-General in the name of the King and was summoned
to meet again on the following 19th September, subsequent to the
general election. On the 3rd October the Governor-General again
addressed a Joint Sitting of both Houses, the procedure being exactly
as before. He reviewed the work of the Parliament that had been dis-
solved and outlined the Bills to be submitted in ‘the present session’.
There was again a boycott by Labour, and Debates took place on
the Address. 2

This was the last occasion on which the Governor-General visited
Parliament. The discontinuance of the procedure is doubtless to be
explained by the Government’s desire to keep the Representative of
the Crown in the background so far as possible and, while observing
the strict letter of the Treaty and the Constitution, to eschew the
forms and ceremonies associated with parliamentary usage in the
British Commonwealth. This was in some degree part of the Govern-
ment’s policy in countering Mr. De Valera’s anti-Treaty propaganda,
but it would be idle to deny that it was also to a large extent the result
of the repugnance felt at that time in Government circles to what
were regarded as British symbols.

There is room for legitimate difference of opinion as to whether or
not this policy was commendable, but that its practical results were
unfortunate seems undeniable. Parliamentary sessions ceased to exist
in the ordinary sense, and became co-terminous with Parliaments.
The opening of each new Parliament was marked by no formality
whatever, beyond the reading of the Proclamation in each House.

1 Irish Times, 13 December 1922, and Senate Debates, i. Appendix.

2 Ibid., 4 October 1923, and Senate Debates, ii, Appendix.

562 MACHINERY OF PARLIAMENT

The occasion was therefore drab and uninspiring. As there was no
Governor-General’s Address, the only indication of the legislative
, intentions of the Government lay in their pre-election promises,
which sometimes proved an unreliable guide. In the other countries
of the Commonwealth the Debate on the Address generally occupies
a considerable time, during which the parliamentary draftsman, in
conjunction with the several Departments of State, is able to prepare
the necessary Bills. In the Irish Free State, after the first formal meet-
ing pursuant to the Proclamation, the Houses often found them-
selves with nothing much to do and had to adjourn.

The absence of sessions meant that there were no well-recognized
months during which Parliament would sit. The Government drove
members as hard as it dared, and almost every year there was an
inconclusive wrangle as to when the summer recess should begin,
with the date getting gradually pushed further back. But the fact that
there was no prorogation had another and much more sinister aspect.
Within a year or so of a general election those of the Government’s
election pledges which it intends to respect have usually been ful-
filled. From that point onwards, no occasion arose for the com-
munication to Parliament of the Government’s proposals for the
future. What happened was (and this applies more particularly to
Mr. De Valera’s Administration) that these proposals were first dis-
closed to a party meeting behind closed doors, or else to the annual
convention of the Government party. This pernicious practice is the
very negation of parliamentary democratic government and leads
inevitably to the suspicion that the Government is acting primarily in
the interests of its supporters rather than in the interests of the
country as a whole.

The stipulation in Article 24 of the Constitution that the sessions
of the Senate should not be concluded without its own consent was
first obeyed and then disregarded. Before the dissolution of August
1923 the Dail sent a message to the Senate requesting its consent to
the conclusion of the session, and this was given by formal resolution
passed on the 9th August. A similar resolution, in reply to a similar
message, was passed on the 20th May 1927, the dissolution following
three days later. No such message was received as regards the sessions
which were terminated by the dissolutions of August 1927, January
1932, and January 1933.

The word ‘session’ appeared elsewhere in the Constitution. Article
39 provided that a Bill initiated in the Senate should be introduced in
the Ddil, but if rejected by the D£il ‘it shall not be introduced again •

METHOD OF ADMINISTERING OATH 563

in the same session’. The word having become meaningless, the sen-
tence containing it was deleted by the Constitution (Amendment
No. 14) Act, 1929.

The word also occurred in Article 37, which ran as follows : ‘ Money
shall not be appropriated by vote, resolution or law, unless the pur-
pose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended
by a message from the Representative of the Crown acting on the
advice of the Executive Council.’ Though this article was amended by '
the Constitution (Amendment No. 20) Act, 1933 (the Representative
of the Crown being deprived of this formal function), Mr. De Valera
seems to have overlooked the desirability of dealing with the word
‘session’.

The anxiety to avoid any resemblance to the procedure at West-
minster and in the Parliaments of the overseas Dominions probably
accounted for the fact that the Chairmen of both Houses and the
Clerks at the Table wore neither wig and gown nor robes of any sort.
These things inculcate respect for the Chair, and therefore make for
dignity and decorum. Incidentally, they are not confined to the
nations of the British Commonwealth.

The method of administering the parliamentary Oath was also
peculiar. Article 17 of the Constitution provided that it should be
taken and subscribed by every member, before taking his seat, before •
the Representative of the Crown, or some person authorized by him.
When the Dail met on the 6th December 1922, Mr. Michael Hayes,
who had been Chairman of the Constituent Assembly, announced
that he had been authorized by the Governor-General to administer
the Oath, and he did so in public in the Ddil Chamber. But this pro-
cedure involved risks of disorder. At the first meeting of the Con-
stituent Assembly on the previous 9th September .the late Mr.
Laurence Ginnell had created a scene and in the end had had to be
forcibly ejected because he refused to sign the Roll as required by
the Standing Orders (there was, of course, no Oath at that time). If
the Oath had continued to be administered in public there would
have been no power to debar Mr. De Valera and his followers from
access to the Dail Chamber, and there might have been demonstra-
tions. Accordingly, the Ddil Standing Orders were altered, and
arrangements were made by the Clerk of the Dail for the Oath to be
taken on a day or days prior to the first meeting day of a new
Parliament.

The Senate was in no such difficulty, since there were no absten-
tionist Senators. When it met on the 11th December 1922 the Oath

564 MACHINERY OF PARLIAMENT

was administered by Mr. E. J. Duggan, Minister without portfolio,
being the person authorized by the Governor-General. After the
election of Lord Glenavy as Chairman, he was authorized to ad-
minister it, and he did so, in public in the Senate Chamber, during
the whole period of his Chairmanship. On the 28th November 1928,
immediately before the commencement of the Third Triennial Period
(which saw the advent of Fianna Fdil to the Senate), the procedure
was changed by an amendment of the Standing Orders, and the
practice of the D&il was followed thereafter. It is not easy to under-
stand the reason for the change, unless it was desired to assimilate
the Senate’s procedure to that of^he Dail. The abstentionist policy
had by that time been abandoned for more than a year.

Another striking difference lies in the method of denoting particular
parliaments. Australia numbers hers from the date of federation,
South Africa from the date of the Union, and so on. Thus reference
is made, for example, to the Second Session of the Fourteenth Parlia-
ment of the Commonwealth of Australia. But the Irish Free State
considered its parliamentary history to date, not from the foundation
of the Irish Free State on the 6th December 1922) but from the
Declaration of Independence on the 21st January 1919. The Dail,
not the Parliament, was numbered, the Senate being treated as an
appanage of the Ddil. The series therefore is : First D&il, 21st January
1919 to 10th May 1921 ; Second Dail, 16th August 1921 to 27th
May 1922 (this was the D&il which approved the Treaty); Third
Dail, 9th September 1922 to 9th August 1923 (this was the D&il
which began as a single Constituent Assembly under the Provisional
Government and subsequently became one of the two Houses of
Parliament of the Irish Free State); Fourth Dail, 19th September
1923 to 23rd May 1927; Fifth Ddil, 23rd June 1927 to 25th August'
1927 ; Sixth Dail, 11th October 1927 to 29th January 1932; Seventh
Ddil,9th March 1932 to 2nd January 1933 ; Eighth Dail, 8th February
1933 to 14th June 1937. The First, Second, and Third Dail are statu-
torily defined in the Interpretation Act, 1923 (Section 2). It was the
Eighth Ddil that abolished the Senate.

Article 4 of the Constitution stated that ‘the national language of
the Irish Free State is the Irish language but the English language
shall be equally recognized as an official language’. Matters were so
arranged, however, that the question of versional discrepancies in
Bills never arose, as it does in countries like Canada and 'South
Africa. Of the 153 members of the Ddil probably not more than
half a dozen at the very outside would have been able to carry on a

THE OPENING PRAYER 565

. debate in Irish, and only two or three could be said to be more at
home in Irish than in English. Bills were therefore invariably intro-
duced and passed in English. Article 42 provided that, as soon as a
Bill had received the King’s Assent, two copies were to be prepared,
one in Irish and one in English. One was to be signed by the Repre-
sentative of the Crown and enrolled for record, and in case of conflict
between the two copies that signed by the Representative of the
Crown was to prevail. He invariably signed the English copy, and no
ease of conflict ever occurred.

The ceremony of intimating, in either House or both, the Royal
Assent to Acts was dispensed with. The fact of Assent was published
in the Iris Oifigiuil (the successor of the Dublin Gazette) and in the
Dai I Journal of Proceedings.

Reference has already been made to the Casket presented to the
Senate by Alice Slopford Green, which was laid on the table at the
commencement of the sitting. The only other formality was a prayer,
which, on and after the 2Sth November 1 923. was read by the Clerk of the
House, in Irish and English, before the opening of the proceedings.
This prayer ran: ‘O Almighty and Eternal God, Ruler of all things
and of all men. we. Thy servants here assembled, most humbly be-
seech Thee to grant us Thy Divine Guidance in our deliberations, that
Peace, Justice, Truth. Religion and Piety may reign in our Country,
to the Honour and Glory of Thy Name. Through Jesus Christ Our
Lord. Amen.’ This is a beautiful invocation, and the credit for its
adoption so early in the Senate’s history must be given to Senator the
Earl of Wicklow, a man of deep religious feeling. With considerable
energy and tact, lie personally interviewed both the Catholic and the
Protestant Archbishops of Dublin, and, fortified by their approval,
he had no difficulty in persuading the Senate to adopt it. 1 It was many
years before the DAil followed suit, and it was not until the 19th
October 1932 that the proceedings of that House were opened by
prayer.

1 Senate Debates, ii, 85-91.

PART IX

EP KOGUE

EPILOGUE

Attitude of other members of Commonwealth to new Constitution —
Position of Northern Ireland — Method of constituting Senate — Elec-
tion boycotted by Labour — Failure of the system — University members
— Nominated members — Method of electing President of Ireland—
Undesirability of contested election — Unopposed election of Dr. Douglas
Hyde — His inauguration — Anglo-Irish negotiations — General election
in Northern Ireland— Exchanges between Lord Craigavon and Mr. De
Valera — The Agreements of April 1938 — The Agreement amending the
Treaty — The Financial Agreement — The Trade Agreement — Transfer
of the ports — The dissolution — Speeches by Mr. O' Kelly and General
Mulcahy — Result of the general election of June 1938 — The Senate
election — Report of the Banking Commission — The Munich crisis —
Campaign against partition — Mr. De Valera's plan — Conscription and
Northern Ireland— Attitude of Lord Craigavon — Mr. De Valera's pro-
test — Conscription of Irishmen in Great Britain — The * Government of
the Republic ’ and the Irish Republican Army — Ultimatum to British
Government — Outrages in England — The Offences Against the State
Bill — Irish Republican Army declared an imlawful organization —
Government attitude to bombing activities — British legislation — Mili-
tary Tribunal set up — The Coventry explosion — Its aftermath — Out-
break of European war.

It remains to chronicle the principal events from the promulgation
of the new Constitution up to the outbreak of the present European
war. It will be realized, however, that in dealing with events of such
recent date it is not easy for them to be viewed in their proper per-
spective.

On the date on which the new Constitution came into operation
(29th December 1937) the following statement was issued by the
British Government:

569

570 EPILOGUE

‘His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom has considered
the position created by the new Constitution, which was approved by
the Parliament of the Irish Free State in June 1937, and came into
force on December 29.

‘They are prepared to treat the new Constitution as not effecting
a fundamental alteration in the position of the Irish Free State, in
future to be described under the new Constitution as “fire” or “Ire-
land”, as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

* His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom have ascer-
tained that His Majesty’s Governments in Canada, the Common-
wealth of Australia, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa
are also prepared so to treat the new Constitution.

‘His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom take note of
Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the new Constitution.

‘They cannot recognize that the adoption of the name “fire” or
“Ireland”, or any other provision of those Articles, involves any
right to territory or jurisdiction over territory forming part of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or affects in
any way the position of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

‘They, therefore, regard the use of the name “fire” or “Ireland”
in this connection as relating only to that area which has hitherto
been known as the Irish Free State.’ 1

Thus the other five member-States of the Commonwealth proposed
to continue to treat the Irish Free State, under its new designation,
as a full member of the Commonwealth, with the rights and duties
appertaining to such membership. As ‘external association’, if recog-
nized, would undoubtedly effect ‘a fundamental alteration’ in the
status of the Irish Free State, it follows from this communication that
they do not recognize it. In addition, the British Government does
not recognize the claim to de jure jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.

We shall next consider the manner in which the Constitution was
implemented in regard to the formation of a Senate and the election
of a President of Ireland.

The Constitution provides that, out of a Senate of 60 members, 11
shall be nominated by the Prime Minister and the remaining 49 shall
be elected — 3 from each of the two universities and 43 from five voca-
tional panels, representing cultural and professional interests, agri-
culture, labour, industry and commerce, and public administration.
The Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Act, 1937, provides the
1 Irish Times, 30 December 1937.

THE NEW SENATE 571

machinery for the election of these 43 members. The electorate con-
sists of the Ddil (138 members), plus 7 representatives from each of
the 31 county councils, making an electoral college of 355 members
in all. The five panels of candidates are constituted (a) by nomina-
tions made by bodies whose claims to nominate are admitted by the
statutory Returning Officer, and ( b ) by nominations made by mem-
bers of the D&il. The necessity was overlooked of making provision
for casual vacancies caused by the death or resignation of any of the
forty-three senators so elected.

Thus, against all experience, the principle was retained of consti-
tuting members of the Dail as both nominators and electors; and the
result of the first election held under this extremely cumbrous system
was in accordance with informed expectation.

First, the 217 electors of the county councils had to be elected,
then the Returning Officer published the register containing the
names of the bodies whose claims he had admitted to exercise the
right of nomination to each of the five vocational panels. As the
country is not organized on a vocational basis, this must have pre-
sented some difficult problems. For instance, the claim to nominate
to the labour panel was admitted in the case of an obscure society
known as the Ballingarry Cottage Tenants’ and Rural Workers’
Association. The Returning Officer had no option in the matter, in
view of the loose wording of the Constitution, which merely specifies
‘labour, whether organized or unorganized*; and in any case his deci-
sion was confirmed by the statutory Appeal Committee of the Dail.
But to give to a society established in a Limerick village of less than
500 inhabitants co-equal nominating power with the whole trade
union movement was a manifest absurdity. The Trade Union Con-
gress protested strongly, alleging that the Ballingarry Association had
“been defunct for some time and was now specially revived for the
purpose of the election; that it had no rules and no staff; and that its
total income during the past two years of its existence was only
eleven pounds. The protest being unavailing, the Labour Party boy-
cotted the election, nominating no candidates and returning no
members.

The five panels of candidates, as finally constituted, contained 132
names, of which 92 were on the nominating bodies’ sub-panel and 40
were on the Dail sub-panel. The Act specifies that 21 senators shall
be elected from the former and 22 from the latter, the election being
held on principles of proportional representation. This remarkable
election resulted in a triumph for the politicians and a rout for those

572 EPILOGUE

who had allowed their names to go forward in the belief that a voca-
tional second chamber would eventuate. Of the 43 successful candh
dates, 19 were former members of either Ddil or Senate. No fewer
than 95 separate counts were required before the result was arrived
at, but long before the race was over most of the distinguished repre-
sentatives of law, medicine, agriculture, commerce, and the profes-
sions generally were out of the running. A good many of them, in-
deed, may be said to have fallen at the first fence, since they did not
receive a single first preference vote. Some men of proved ability
were, however, returned, such as Mr. Michael Hayes, the former
Chairman of the Ddil, General Mulcahy (who had lost his seat in the
Ddil at the previous general election), and ex-Senator Douglas.

Of the six candidates on the cultural panel who are specially identi-
fied with the Irish language, only one was successful — the headmaster
of a secondary school where teaching is conducted through Irish, in
one of the Irish-speaking districts. The President of the Gaelic
League, the Director of the Irish Folk-Lore Commission, and three
distinguished workers in the academic field were all defeated.

The six university members did something to improve the per-
sonnel. The National University returned Mrs. Helena Concannon,
Professor Michael Tierney, and Surgeon Barniville. Professor Tierney
was a particularly valuable acquisition. He had represented his uni-
versity in the Ddil from 1927 to 1932, during which period he had
shown that detachment, independence of mind, and power of expres-
sion which one expects of a profound classical scholar; and his quali-
ties later received recognition by his appointment as Vice-Chairman
of the new Senate (30th November 1938). Dublin University (Trinity
College) elected two of its former representatives in the Ddil, Profes-
sor Alton and Dr. Rowlette, and a newcomer in Mr. Joseph John-
ston, an expert in economics, who is also a Fellow of the college. All
three were of the senatorial type.

The Senate was completed by the eleven members nominated by
Mr. De Valera as Prime Minister. His nominees included Sir John
Keane and Mr. Frank MacDermot, neither of whom could fairly be
regarded as his political supporter, and Dr. Douglas Hyde, who has
never been connected with politics; but otherwise his list was not
particularly distinguished, and, taken as a whole, it showed none of
the breadth of outlook which characterized Mr. Cosgrave’s nomina-
tions in 1922. His selection did little to increase the vocational charac-
ter of the Second Chamber. On the contrary, indeed, it seems to have
increased its political complexion.

UNOPPOSED ELECTION OF PRESIDENT 573

The result of the first Senate election had disclosed an undoubted
flaw in the Constitution in providing for a vocational second cham-
ber in a country which is not organized vocationally. In the prepara-
tion for the election of a President another defect was made mani-
fest. The Constitution provides that the President shall be elected by
direct vote of the people, from among candidates nominated either
by (a) not less than twenty members of the Dail or Senate, or (b) not
less than four county councils. The machinery was supplied by a
voluminous Presidential Elections Act, 1937. It was generally under-
stood that the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Sean T. O’Kelly, was a
possible candidate, and the Rt. Hon. Alfred Byrne, Lord Mayor of
Dublin, made it clear that in that event he would go forward also.
There might have been other candidates as well. Thus, what seemed
likely to happen was exactly what is contemplated by the Constitu-
tion, namely, that two or more prominent public men should engage
in a nation-wide contest for the office of President. No sooner was
this fact realized than there was general agreement that an election
must at all costs be avoided. Such an event would only have aroused
undesirable contention concerning a position which should be re-
moved from the arena of party politics. If Messrs. Byrne and O’Kelly
had been the sole candidates, the country would have been rent by
dissension, the victor would probably have had only a narrow major-
ity, and it is to be feared that some of the minority would not have
accorded to him the respect due to his office.

To prevent such an untoward result a conference was arranged
between two members of the Government and two members of the
Opposition Front Bench. They met on the 21st April 1938, and it
was agreed, after some discussion, that Dr. Douglas Hyde should be
requested to accept nomination. The Labour Part)' signified its ap-
proval, Dr. Hyde agreed, and there was no other candidate. He was
therefore declared elected, unopposed, on the 4th May 1938.

No happier choice could well be imagined. For a period of half a
century Douglas Hyde, avoiding all political entanglements, has
steadily pursued with single-minded endeavour his self-appointed
task of rescuing the Irish language from oblivion. If anyone is de-
serving of the highest honour the State can bestow, it is he. Moreover,
he is no scholarly recluse, but a genial man of the world whom it is
easy to love and impossible to dislike; and, as is the case with most
educated men who know the Irish language thoroughly, his devotion
to it has never made him intolerant. There is the added fact that, as
Dr. Hyde is not of the faith of the majority, his unopposed election

574 EPILOGUE

to the Presidency afforded a salutary object-lesson in religious tolera-
tion.

The 25th June 1938 was the date fixed for the inauguration of the
President. On the morning of that day the Prime Minister and the
Catholic members of Parliament attended a solemn Votive Mass in
St. Mary’s Pro-Cathedral and the President-elect and the Protestant
members attended a special Divine Service in St. Patrick’s Cathedral.
Thereupon the simple yet dignified ceremony of installation took
place in the historic St. Patrick’s Hall of Dublin Castle. Dr. Hyde
took and subscribed the declaration of fealty prescribed by the Con-
stitution, in the presence of the judges, members of the Oireachtas,
and other public personages, and entered on his office as first Presi-
dent of Ireland. Addressing the new President on this occasion, Mr.
De Valera said, with hyperbole pardonable in the circumstances, ‘In
you we greet the successor of our rightful princes.’ 1 In practice, how-
ever, the manner of the President’s appointment proved to be not so
very dissimilar from that of the Governors-General. Notionally, ,the
Governor-General was appointed by the Crown; actually, he was
appointed by the Irish Government. Notionally, the President was
elected by the people; actually, his appointment was due to an ar-
rangement between the Government and the Opposition, owing to
the desirability of avoiding the bitterness of a contested election.
The point is of some importance, because it is hardly to be expected
that on future occasions an agreed candidate of the. outstanding
merit of Douglas Hyde will be easy to find.

We now turn our attention to Anglo-Irish relations. On the 11th 1
January 1938 Mr. De Valera informed the Ddil that a meeting was
to be held in London on the 17th January between representatives of
the two Governments, for the purpose of discussing outstanding
questions. Asked by journalists the same evening whether the parti-
tion issue would be raised, Mr. De Valera replied, ‘Inevitably.’ On
the following day Lord Craigavon, anxious as ever to put a spoke in
Mr. De Valera’s wheel, announced a general election for Northern
Ireland.

Besides partition, the main questions were the occupation by
British forces of the three Treaty ports and a settlement of the eco-
nomic war. The Irish delegation was headed by Mr. De Valera, who
was accompanied by three of his Ministers, and the British delega-
tion consisted of Mr. Neville Chamberlain and three members of his
Cabinet. On the 19th January it was officially announced that, while

1 Irish Independent , 27 June 1938.

NORTHERN IRELAND GENERAL ELECTION 575

no agreement had been reached, the preliminary negotiations had .
proceeded far enough to justify a more detailed examination of a
number of points by officials of both Governments.

On the 10th February, while this examination was in progress, the
general election was held in Northern Ireland. The result was as fol-
lows, the number of members returned unopposed being given in
brackets:

Unionists

39 (14)

Nationalists

8 (6)

Independent Unionists

Labour

2 (1)

Independent

52 (21)

The result shows the political stagnation in the Six-County area. In
nearly half the constituencies (exclusive of the university, which re-
turns four members) there was no contest at all, since opinions are so
fixed that the result would have been a foregone conclusion. Although
Belfast and, to a less extent, Derry are heavily industrialized areas,
the Labour Party could return only two members. Since the Nation-
alists comprise more than one-third of the population, they could
normally return more than one-third of the membership — in other
words, double their present strength. But a number of factors render
this impossible: the abolition of proportional representation in 1928;
the gerrymandering of the constituencies; and the Nationalists’ own
internal dissensions, coupled with their reliance on Dublin for non-
existent leadership instead of seeking leaders of their own. However,
the Nationalists were unopposed in five of the border constituencies
— Mid-Derry, Derry City, South Fermanagh, Mid-Tyrone, and West
Tyrone — as well as in Belfast Central; and they contested and won
two other seats— East Tyrone (also a border constituency) and the
Falls division of Belfast.

The election, in fact, proved nothing that was not well known al-
ready. Northern Ireland contains six of the nine counties of the pro-
vince of Ulster. In four of these counties, taken as a whole (Antrim,
Derry, Down, and Armagh), there is a large majority in favour of
the continuance of partition. In the two remaining counties (Tyrone
and Fermanagh) there is a much smaller majority, but still a majority,
in favour of reunion with the rest of Ireland.

Lord Craigavon hailed the result as a great victory, as, from his

576 EPILOGUE

point of view, he was quite entitled to do. ‘I am deeply gratified by
the overwhelming response to my appeal for a renewal of your confi-
dence and at the magnificent reply you have given to the latest de-
mand from Southern Ireland for the surrender of Ulster. Mr. De
Valera has again presumed to dictate his terms to the Imperial
Government for the severance of Ulster from the United Kingdom.
That question, however, was not for him, but for the people of Ulster
to decide.’ 1

It will be observed that the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland
uses the term ‘Ulster’, though his authority extends to only six of
its nine counties, and, morally, he can speak for only four. He also
employs the offensive and non-existent term ‘Southern Ireland’, in
regard to which it is sufficient to point out that the area to which he
refers contains the most northerly county in Ireland (Donegal) and
that in Derry, which is the most northerly city in the country, the
Unionists did not even put up a candidate in one of its two con-
stituencies.

Mr. De Valera delivered a pungent reply. ‘Lord Craigavon makes
a mistake. So long as this nation endures, the recovery of that part of
the province of Ulster which has been wrongfully torn away will be
the first item on the agenda in every conference between the repre-
sentatives of Ireland and Britain until that item is finally wiped off in
the only way in which it can be wiped off, by the restoration of Ire-
land’s natural unity.’ 2

On the 19th February the Irish delegates crossed over to London
again, but the resumption of the discussions was held up for four
days on account of Mr. Chamberlain’s preoccupation with the inter-
national situation, owing to the menacing attitude of Germany to the
Austrian Government. Returning to Dublin on the 26th February,
Mr. De Valera informed the press that ‘a comprehensive settlement
— the only one that would have world significance — now seems al-
most unattainable’. 3 By this he meant that his attempt to end parti-
tion had met with no success; but he seems to have decided, very sen-
sibly, that an agreement on the other issues was preferable to no
agreement at all. On the 2nd March the delegation returned to Lon-
don, and by the 12th March the talks had so far progressed that Mr.
De Valera and his colleagues came home for consultation with the
Cabinet as a whole. The 12th March was a black-letter day in the
annals of Europe, for it was on that day that Hitler marched into

1 Irish Independent, 11 February 1938. 2 Ibid., 11 February 1938.

3 Ibid., 28 February 1938.

THE LONDON AGREEMENTS OF 1938 577

Austria; and it is possible that the growing threat from Nazi Ger-
many was a factor in inducing the British Government to go as far
as it could in the way of establishing a friendly Ireland on the
western flank of Great Britain.

Finally, on the 25th April 1938, three separate Agreements of out-
standing importance were signed in London. 1 The signatories were,
on the Irish side, the Prime Minister (Mr. De Valera), Mr. Lemass,
Mr. MacEntee, and Dr. Ryan, and, on the British side, the Prime
Minister (Mr. Neville Chamberlain), Sir John Simon, Sir Samuel
Hoare, and Mr. Malcolm MacDonald. In addition, Sir Thomas
Inskip signed the first Agreement and Mr. W. S. Morrison the third.
The preamble to the Agreements stated that the two Governments
were ‘desirous of promoting relations of friendship and good under-
standing between the two countries, of reaching a final settlement of
all outstanding financial claims of either of the two Governments
against the other, and of facilitating trade and commerce between the
two countries’.

The first Agreement annulled the provisions of Articles 6 and 7 of
the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 and of the Annex thereto. Article 6
provided that ‘until an arrangement has been made between the
British and Irish Governments whereby the Irish Free State under-
takes her own coastal defence, the defence by sea of Great Britain and
Ireland shall be undertaken by His Majesty’s Imperial Forces’.
Article 7 provided that the Irish Free State Government should afford
to the said Forces (a) the harbour and other facilities indicated in the
Annex, namely, the Admiralty property and harbour defences at
Cove (Queenstown), Berehaven, and Lough Swilly, and (b) ‘in time
of war or of strained relations with a Foreign Power such harbour
and other facilities as the British Government may require for the
purposes of such defence as aforesaid’. In addition to deleting these
provisions of the Treaty, the new Agreement provided that these
three ports, ‘now occupied by care and maintenance parties furnished
by the United Kingdom’, should be transferred to the Government
of Eire, and that the transfer should take place not later than the 3 1 st
December 1938. Actually, Cove was handed over on the 11th July,
Berehaven on the 29th September, and Lough Swilly on the 3rd
October— -the last two during and after the Munich crisis.

The form of this Agreement is of some constitutional interest.
Since it provides that certain portions of the Treaty of 1921 ‘shall
cease to have effect’, there is an implicit acknowledgement by the

i Cmd. 5728 (1938) (xxx, p. 1001).

578 . EPILOGUE

signatories that the Treaty, as amended by mutual agreement, al-
though no longer part of our municipal law, is still a subsisting inter-
national instrument of full validity. And Article 1 of the Treaty pro-
vides that ‘Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the
Community of Nations known as the British Empire, as the Do-
minion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion
of New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa’.

The second Agreement was a financial agreement. The Govern-
ment of £ire agreed to pay to the Government of the United King-
dom the sum of £10,000,000, and this was to ‘constitute a final settle-
ment of all financial claims of either of the two Governments against
the other’. In other words, the Land Annuities and other periodical
payments specified in the repudiated Ultimate Financial Settlement
of 1926 were compounded for this amount. The only exception of
substance was an annual sum of £250,000 which the Cosgrave Ad-
ministration had undertaken to pay in respect of damage to property
under the Agreement of the 3rd December 1925. This Agreement had
been ratified by the Dail, and the liability under it had never been in
dispute. As a corollary to the new Agreement, both Governments
undertook to abolish the penal duties which had been in force since
1932. Thus, after nearly six years, the economic war was brought to
an end, after having cost the Irish people, according to one expert
estimate, the colossal sum of forty-eight millions sterling. 1

The third Agreement was a trade agreement of an extremely com-
' prehensive character, comprising nineteen articles and six schedules.
It was to remain in force for three years, and, broadly speaking, one
might describe it as the kind of agreement that might have been ex-
pected to result from the Ottawa Conference of 1932 if the British
Government had not then declined to negotiate an agreement with
the Irish delegates. In general, Irish goods were to be admitted free of
customs duties into the British market, with certain provisions con-
cerning the quantitative regulation of imports of agricultural pro-
ducts. Reciprocally, the Irish Government guaranteed the right of
free entry for certain classes of British goods which were not subject
to duty at the date of the Agreement; and it undertook to remove or
to modify the duties on certain other classes of British goods. The
method adopted was that the existing protective duties should be re-
viewed by the (Irish) Prices Commission, with a view to giving
United Kingdom producers and manufacturers full opportunity of
reasonable competition, while affording adequate protection to Irish

1 Irish Independent, 26 April 1938.

THE TRANSFER OF THE PORTS 57?

industries; and British producers and manufacturers were granted the
right of audience before the Commission. The chief benefit to both
sides of this mutually advantageous commercial treaty has been tire
improvement in the trade of agricultural products— a trade which is
the economic mainstay of Ireland and is. under war conditions, al-
most equally important to Great Britain.

These three Agreements reflect the greatest credit on the good
sense of both sides, and particularly on Mr. De Valera and Mr.
Neville Chamberlain. They were duly ratified by the United Kingdom
Parliament by the Ieire (Confirmation of Agreements) Act. which re-
ceived the Royal Assent on the 1 7th May. 1 On the Irish side, although
the preamble to the Agreements states that they are to be ‘subject to
Parliamentary confirmation*, a simple resolution of the D.iil was
deemed sufficient, no parallel resolution being submitted to the
Senate. The Dail resolution was passed, without a division, on the
29th April, after three days' debate. 5 The agreement to accept trans-
fer of the ports incurred some criticism, both from the Opposition
Front Bench and from the Labour Party. Mr. Cosgravc disclosed the
fact that his Government bad been requested to take over the ports,
but had declined to do so on account of the cost; and this statement
was later confirmed in the Senate by Mr. Desmond Fit/gcrald. who
was Minister for Defence in 192S when the request was made. 3 The
Leader of the Labour Party inquired whether there was any under-
standing that the British Navy would be allowed the use of the ports
as bases. Any such understanding was denied by Mr. De Valent, and
it has been proved by subsequent c\ents to base been non-existent.
But some colour was given to this suggestion by Mr. De Valera’s
announcement that the harbour defences of Cove, Bcrclmcn, and
Lough Swilly would not be allowed to become derelict, but would be
maintained and modernized. As these bases are useless tor purposes
of defence except in conjunction with a fleet, the decision to spend
money on them is difficult to understand. The British Navy is not to
be allowed to use them. Ireland has no navy and cannot afford to
build one.

This is a subject on which there has been a good deal of muddled
thinking. In stipulating that the defence by sea of Gre.a Britain and
Ireland should be undertaken by the British Navy, the 1 reaty of UO!
recognized the strategic unity which, in a predatory world, v im*

1 /{once of Co r, v:.'r.s Debstr t. cresss - . , ! 07 1 ! IS!; v if/.- 1 ;■ Del.:
cix,

- DM! Debars. Ivsi. -TV,

- Senese Deletes, xsu:', 1*1,

580 EPILOGUE

posed on the two islands by the facts of geography. During the war
of 1914-18 the ports in question were bases of the highest impor-
tance, from which the navy was enabled to defend the western ap-
proaches to what was then the United Kingdom. Hence the provi-
sion in the Treaty that the harbour defences should remain in charge
of British care and maintenance parties and that the British Ad-
miralty should be accorded facilities thereat. But Ireland’s national
dignity, and her co-equality as a member of the Commonwealth,
were safeguarded by a proviso in Article 6 that she should undertake
her own coastal defence after a period of five years.

In offering to transfer the ports in 1928, the British Government
probably contemplated a similar agreement to that concluded with
South Africa in 1922 with regard to Simonstown, whereby the Union
makes itself responsible for the maintenance and manning of the
forts and guarantees that Simonstown will at all times be in a posi-
tion to serve as a British naval base. An Anglo-Irish agreement on
these lines might have been a practicable proposition in 1928, and,
while recognizing existing realities, it would have been no more dero-
gatory to our national status than the Simonstown Agreement is to
that of South Africa. But it would have gravely compromised our
right to neutrality in war, and with Mr. De Valera’s advent to office
in 1932 any such solution became out of the question. For he held—
and it is, of course, a permissible point of view — that the continued
occupation by the British of these ports was an outrage on national
sentiment, just as General Hertzog holds that the British Navy’s
right to use Simonstown is ‘a national servitude’. Nevertheless, it is
clear that, whether Ireland is at war or is at peace, her only defence
against aggression is provided by the British Navy. During the debate
on the Agreement Mr. De Valera repeated, with obvious sincerity,
his assurance that his Government would not allow their territory to
be used as a base of attack against Great Britain. But a moment’s
reflection will show that his decision to maintain and modernize the
three former naval bases does little to enable hirri to implement
that assurance. If the British Navy, even temporarily, lost command
of the sea to an enemy which then decided to invade Ireland, it is
hardly to be supposed that he would attempt to effect a landing at
the three fortified positions instead of at one of the countless other
practicable landing-places round the Irish coast, which must remain
undefended because they cannot be effectively defended.

Not long after the conclusion of the London Agreements, the Par-
liamentary Opposition presented Mr, De Valera with an opportunity

THE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 581

of capitalizing the popularity which he had obtained by the termina-
tion of the economic war and the transfer of the ports. On the 25th
May 1938, in the Ddil, a motion relating to the claim by Civil Ser-
vants for an independent Arbitration Board was pressed to a division
and carried against the Government by 52 votes to 51, the United
Ireland Party and the Labour Party joining forces. 1 Two days later
the Dail was dissolved, and, in the course of a statement issued the
same evening, Mr. Dc Valera said :

‘During the past six years the Government has been severely handi-
capped, and the national interest has suffered, by the fact that the
Government’s parliamentary position was deemed insecure. On two
occasions I appealed to the people to set this right. Unfortunately,
owing to the system of proportional representation, my appeal on
these occasions proved to be ineffective. I now appeal once more.’ 2

However that may be, there can be no doubt that the defeat of the
Government on a major issue justified Mr. Dc Valera in seeking a
renewal of confidence at the polls.

Owing, possibly, to the suddenness of the dissolution, the cam-
paign was one of the quietest on record. In the absence of any clear-
cut distinction between the policies of the two major parties, the
attitude of the Labour Party must have been worth a good many
votes to Fianna Fail. For Labour nominated only thirty candidates,
and its manifesto made it clear that, if the party again secured the
balance of power, its aim would be to secure a forty-hour week, holi-
days with pay for all workers, and increases in all the social services. 3
Numbers of people who viewed with alarm the deteriorating financial
position of the country, and who felt that the Government party
would probably be returned in any case, must have voted for that
party in the hope of making the new Administration independent of
Labour.

The campaign was notable for two speeches. Speaking in Dublin
on the 8th June, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. O’Kelly), who, it
will be remembered, had been seriously mentioned a short time pre-
viously as a possible candidate for the office of President, referred to
the London Agreements and said :

‘I think that no one will doubt that England and the British Em-
pire is a very powerful — if not the most powerful — political force in
the world to-day, and in the last six years look how we whipped John
Bull every time. Look at the last agreement we made with her. We

1 Ddil Debates, lxxi, 1865-8. 2 Irish Independent, 28 May 1938.

3 Ibid., 7 June 1938.

582 EPILOGUE

won all round us; we wiped her right, left and centre, and, with God’s
help, we shall do the same again.’ 1

Two days later General Mulcahy administered a dignified rebuke
to Mr. O’Kelly for this puerile outburst and stressed the importance
of a strong Britain if spiritual values are to be maintained in the
modern world.

‘If there was one Power in Europe whose strength was important
to the maintenance of Christianity, it was Great Britain, with the new
rising nationalities of Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New
Zealand, and the great English-speaking people of the United States
of America. If Great Britain were injured, not alone European civili-
zation, but Christianity itself would be struck a blow from which it
would be difficult to recover. Providence would look after Chris-
tianity, but it might be many years before civilization as we knew it
would recover.’ 2

The general election was held on the 17th June 1938, and the re-
sult was as follows, the party strength at the dissolution being given
in brackets:

Party

Fianna Fail (De Valera)

United Ireland Party (Cosgrave)

Labour

Independents

Candidates

Members

nominated

elected

77 (69)

45 (48)

9(13)

7(8)

207

138

Thus, as compared with the election held less than twelve months
earlier, Mr. De Valera greatly improved his position, gaining three
seats from the Cosgrave Party, four from the Labour Party, and one
from the Independents, and having a clear majority of fifteen (exclu-
sive of the Chairman of the Dail) over all other parties combined.
General Mulcahy returned to the House after a year’s absence, but
Mr. Cecil Lavery, K.C., a member of the Cosgrave Party, lost his
seat, and so the Dail was deprived of the services of one of the most
brilliant lawyers in the country. The personnel of the new Administra-
tion was unchanged.

Under the new Constitution an election for the Senate must take
place not later than ninety days after a dissolution of the Dail. Hence

1 Irish Times, 9 June 1938. 2 Ibid., 11 June 1938.

REPORT OF THE BANKING COMMISSION 583

the forty-three senators elected on the 31st March had been given a
very short run for their money, having met on only ten occasions.
The election was completed on the 18th August, and twenty out of
the forty-three were newcomers. The changes were largely due to the
fact that the Labour Party did not again boycott the proceedings,
and to the increased Fianna Fail representation in the Dail. Dis-
tinguished professional candidates were worsted as before, and Mr.
De Valera’s nominees were unchanged, as was the membership of the
two universities. The result was a political second chamber of the
same complexion as the Dail, more than half the Senators being for-
mer members of the Dail or of the old Senate before it was abolished.

On the 8th August, not long after the general election, the Govern-
ment published the Report of the Banking Commission, a document
of enormous length and of transcendent importance. The Commis-
sion was appointed on the 20th November 1934 by the Minister for
Finance (Mr. MacEntee), with very wide terms of reference. It was to
examine and report on the system of currency, banking, credit, public
borrowing and lending, and the pledging of State credit on behalf of
agriculture, industry, and the social services, and to consider and re-
port what changes, if any, were necessary or desirable to promote the
social and economic welfare of the community and the interests of
agriculture and industry. The Commission consisted of twenty-one
members, the Chairman being Mr. Joseph Brennan, the Chairman
of the Currency Commission; and among its other members were
three university Professors of Economics, the Secretary of the De-
partment of Finance and other prominent Civil Servants, a number
of bank directors, representatives of Labour, and two outside experts
— Professor T. E. Gregory and Mr. Per Jacobsson of the Bank for
International Settlements. The Committee reported on the 23rd
March 1938, and, as the majority report is signed by no less than
sixteen of the twenty-one members, it carries very great authority. A
detailed examination of its contents does not fall within the scope of
this book, but it has been desirable to refer to it because it consists
of an expert survey of the whole economic life of the country. In
general it is severely critical of the policy of economic self-sufficiency
pursued by Mr. De Valera’s Administration since 1932.

The Munich crisis of September 1938 found Ireland unprepared.
Speaking in the Ddil on the previous 13th July, Mr. De Valera was
unable to give any clear indication of his policy on defence, except
that the Government had no commitments in the event of war and
would avoid being involved if it could. He agreed, however, that

584 EPILOGUE

owing to the withdrawal of the British garrisons from our harbours
we were ‘in a position to approach this whole question from a new
angle’. 1 On the 12th September Mr. De Valera was elected President
of the League Assembly, and he was therefore absent in Geneva
during these anxious days. On the 27th, when war seemed inevitable,
he sent a telegram of encouragement to Mr. Chamberlain, imploring
him to let nothing daunt him or deflect him in his efforts to secure
peace. 2 Nobody, of course, knew whether, in the event of hostilities,
Germany would respect Ireland’s neutrality, or for how long; and
the settlement reached on the last day of September was greeted with
almost as much relief in Dublin as in London, though it was tem-
pered by a profound feeling of sympathy with Czechoslovakia, a
country with which Ireland has always had much in common. The
general indignation at the country’s lack of preparedness was ex-
pressed in a letter to the press by Dr. O’Higgins, a member of the
Opposition Front Bench, when the crisis was over.

‘We had no policy, no plan, no aeroplanes, no defence equipment,
no gas masks. ... In the absence of a policy or a plan we sent officers
and Civil Servants rushing over to London to hammer on the Ad-
miralty and War Office doors in a panicky endeavour to purchase
hundreds of thousands of pounds’ worth of aeroplanes, anti-aircraft
guns, gas masks, etc., just on the eve of the outbreak, when every
nation required all such supplies for themselves.’ 3

Both before the Munich crisis and subsequently Mr. De Valera has
continued to keep the partition issue in the forefront of Irish politics.
As this difficult problem is dealt with at some length in the Introduction
to this book, it will suffice here to give some specimen quotations.

On the 14th June 1938, in an election speech at Dunleary, he is re-
ported to have spoken as follows :

‘For twenty years he had said they wanted to be good neighbours
with the neighbouring peoples, particularly with the nearest neigh-
bour. Now Britain had realized that, and he was certain that when
they got a majority in the North for unity there would be no outside
interference.’ 4

This is a very important statement, but it appears to be very largely
negatived by other utterances of the same speaker. Thus, on the 22nd
November 1938 Mr. De Valera referred to his conversations with
British Ministers during the London negotiations in the previous
spring, and he continued :

1 D&il Debates , lxxii, 639-716. 2 Irish Press, 28 September 1938.

3 Irish Independent, 8 October 1938. 4 Irish Times, 15 June 1938.

MR. DE VALERA ON PARTITION 585

‘We were told that nothing could be done without the consent of
the people of the North, and there are some people who say that
Britain could wash her hands of it. The Irish people throughout the
world will, nevertheless, hold Britain responsible for creating parti-
tion and for continuing it, because they know perfectly well that par-
tition could not continue if the support which it is getting was with-
drawn.’ 1

The nearest approach that Mr. De Valera has made to a detailed
plan for the ending of partition is that contained in an interview which
he gave to a special correspondent of the London Evening Standard.
This was published on the 17th October 1938 and reproduced in full
by the Dublin morning newspapers on the following day. The part
of the interview which contains his concrete proposals is as follows:

‘Taking into account the prevailing sentiment of the present
majority in the Six Counties and bearing in mind also the sentiment
of the minority there and the majority in the whole island, here is
what I propose. If I could have my own way, I would have imme-
diately a single All-Ireland Parliament, elected on a system of pro-
portional representation so as to be fair to minorities — this might
entail a different form of executive. But what I propose, in the exist-
ing situation, is not that. I would say to Belfast: “Keep all your
present powers. We ask only one thing of you. We think the area you
control is not the area which in justice you could claim, even for a
local parliament, but we make the concession if you guarantee fair
play for the minority and consent to the transfer to an All-Ireland
Parliament of the powers now reserved to the Parliament at West-
minster.”

‘I want to make it as easy as possible for Northern Ireland to join
us, because it is my fixed belief that, once we are working together
and ..prejudices eliminated, the North would speedily find it more
economical and satisfactory to surrender their local parliament alto-
gether and come into a single All-Ireland Parliament.’

Interviewed on the evening that this proposal was published. Lord
Craigavon said, ‘I can only reiterate the old battle-cry of Northern
Ireland — “ No Surrender 1 ” ’ 2

The controversy about partition was rendered more acute by the
conscription issue which arose in the spring of 1939. On the 16th
March Nazi Germany completed the destruction of Czechoslovakia,
and this act seems to have convinced the British Government that
Hitler’s word could not be relied on and that war was probably inevi-

1 Irish Press, 23 November 1938. 2 Irish Independent , 18 October 1938.

586 EPILOGUE

table. On the 26th April, in the House of Commons, the Prime Minis-
ter announced the Government’s decision to introduce compulsory
military service. 1 Mr. De Valera was due to sail for the United States
on the 28th, to open the Irish Pavilion at the New York World’s Fair
and to undertake a tour in furtherance of his campaign against parti-
tion. But the day after Mr. Chamberlain’s announcement he informed
the Dail that ‘certain grave events which occurred yesterday’ had
caused the postponement of his mission. 2 Everybody knew that the
allusion was to the effect on Northern Ireland of the British Govern-
ment’s decision.

This is a subject which demands clear thinking and plain speech.
Conscription is the legal right to compel male citizens of military age
to take up arms in defence of their country. In the ultimate, it im-
plies physical force, and therefore it can be resisted only by physical
force. Ordinarily, the question of resistance does not arise, since the
obligations of citizenship are co-extensive with the rights which it
confers. The situation in Northern Ireland is, however, exceptional.
The Catholic Nationalists, forming more than one-third of the total
population, are condemned to be in a perpetual minority so far as
governmental functions are concerned. Notionally, no. doubt, they
have full citizenship rights equally with the majority, but Lord Craig-
avon has himself boasted (he used that word) that Northern Ireland
has a Protestant Parliament and is a Protestant State. 3

However that may be, it is not disputable that any attempt to en-
force conscription in Northern Ireland would have met with physical
resistance on the part of the minority, and the Belfast Government
can hardly have been unaware of this fact. The British Government
also, one might have supposed, should have profited by its fruitless
attempt to impose conscription on the whole of Ireland in April 1918.
The results would have been negligible from a military point of view,
the German Fuehrer would have been presented with an inestimable
piece of propaganda against England, and British prestige would
have been lowered throughout the world. As for the majority in the.
Six Counties, compulsion was presumably unnecessary, since, if the
professions of their leaders are to be believed, their ‘loyalty’ would
have rallied them to the colours as one man under the voluntary
system.

On the 1st May the six Catholic bishops whose dioceses lie within

1 House of Commons Debates, cccxlvi, 1150-4.

2 D&il Debates, lxxv, 1155.

3 House of Commons Debates ( Northern Ireland), xvi, 1095 and xvii, 73.

NORTHERN IRELAND AND CONSCRIPTION 587

the Six-County area, headed by Cardinal MacRory, issued a state-
ment declaring that they were convinced that any attempt to impose
conscription in Northern Ireland would be disastrous and that the
British Government stood to lose rather than gain by such an at-
tempt They also described it as ‘an outrage on the national feeling
and an aggression upon our national rights’. 1 On the following day
Lord Craigavon crossed over to London at the request of the British
Government, and, with full knowledge of what the result would be,
he pressed for the enforcement of conscription.

Also on the 2nd May, Mr. De Valera stated in the Ddil that his
Government had ‘ protested to the British Government in the strongest
terms against the threatened imposition of conscription in that part
of our country’ ; and he later characterized the proposal as ‘an act of
aggression’. 2 The Dail, irrespective of party, supported this attitude,
and it became obvious that the British Government, by giving heed
to Lord Craigavon’s reckless importunacy, had allowed a very serious
situation to develop. Fortunately, they withdrew in time; for, two
days later, when moving the Second Reading of the Military Training
Bill, Mr. Chamberlain stated that it had been decided that the Bill
shouldnot extend to Northern Ireland. Referring to Lord Craigavon’s
visit, he said that ‘the people of Northern Ireland are above all loyal
to the Crown and to the connection with the rest of the United King-
dom, and nothing would cause so much resentment in Ulster (sic) as
the suggestion that they should in any way be relieved of burdens or
of sacrifices which were being borne by their fellow citizens over here.
When I saw Lord Craigavon on this matter, he vehemently asserted
that position.’ Lord Craigavon stated, however, ‘that he would de-
sire to leave the ultimate decision of what should be done in the hands
of His Majesty’s Government. We warmly welcome this attitude on
the part of Lord Craigavon and his Government, an attitude which is
inspired by the purest kind of patriotism.’ 3 One might comment that,
if patriotism of this type were more widespread, there would soon not
be much left of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

The question of conscription for Irishmen came up again later, but
the principle involved was entirely different. The Military Training
Act having become law on the 26th May, Mr. De Valera protested to
the British Government against the inclusion of any Irish citizens in
the category of British subjects liable for military service. This time,

1 Irish Independent, 1 May 1939.

2 Dail Debates, Ixxv, 1415, 1429.

3 House of Commons Debates, cccxlvi, 2103-5.

588 EPILOGUE

however, his protest was unavailing. 1 Indeed, it does not appear to
be well founded either in equity or in common sense. In spite of
Article 1 of the Treaty, Mr. De Valera regards Eire as an independent
State (the character of which, whether monarchy or republic, is not
designated), in ‘external association’ with the British Commonwealth.
Great Britain and the other members of the Commonwealth regard
Eire as a full member of the Commonwealth. Hence Irishmen who
choose to go to live in England are not liable to any of the restrictions
imposed on aliens. They are clothed with the full legal status of British
subjects, on exactly the same footing as Englishmen, Scotsmen, and
Welshmen. In these circumstances they can hardly expect to enjoy all
the privileges of their status and to repudiate its obligations. To do
them justice, the overwhelming majority of them have never at-
tempted to do so. Speaking in the Dail on the 14th June 1939, Mr.
De Valera made it clear that, in his opinion, such people cannot ex-
pect to have it both ways, and that his protest was based on the fact
that they are treated as British subjects. 2 This is only one of the many
contradictions into which he is led by his policy of ‘external associa-
tion’. Actually, the British Government has behaved in a very fair
manner as regards Irishmen living in Great Britain. The Act fixes a
period of two years as a sufficient indication to reside permanently in
Great Britain; moreover, if Irish citizens can show that, even though
their period of residence exceeds two years, it has a temporary or ex-
clusively educational purpose, they are not liable to serve. On the
27th September 1939 Mr. De Valera informed the Ddil that, since the
outbreak of war, no obstacle had been put in the way of large num-
bers of Irish citizens with a much longer period of residence than two
years returning to this country. 3

Since Mr. De Valera’s anti-partition campaign represented parti-
tion as a continuing act of aggression on the part of Great Britain, it
was to be expected that it would have repercussions, not only upon
the delicate international situation (one of his speeches was quoted by
Hitler), but also among the extremists at home. Indeed, the experience
of 1932 must have shown him how readily his verbal attacks are
supplemented by unofficial physical attacks. During the greater part
of 1938 the Irish Republican Army remained comparatively quies-
cent, their only spectacular exploit being the burning of a number of
customs huts along the border on the night of the 29th November.
But on the 8th December a body of seven persons (six men and one

1 DM Debates, lxxvi, 311, 312. 2 Ibid., lxxvi, 973-4.

3 Ibid., Ixxvii, 192-4.

REPUBLICAN ACTIVITIES • 589

woman) styling themselves the ‘Executive Council of Dail Eireann,
Government of the Republic’ issued a Proclamation, which was
quoted in full by the Minister for Justice (Mr. Ruttledge) in the Dail 1
and of which the first paragraph is as follows :

‘Dffil Eireann: In consequence of armed opposition ordered and
sustained by England, and the defection of elected representatives of
the people over the periods since the Republican Proclamation of
Easter, 1916, was ratified, three years later, by the newly inaugurated
Government of the Irish Republic, we hereby delegate the authority
reposed in us to the Army Council, in the spirit of the decision taken
by Dail Eireann in the Spring of 1921, and later endorsed by the
Second D&il.'

This calls for some recapitulation. The Second Dail was the one
which approved the Treaty (7th January 1922). The seven signatories
of this Proclamation were all members of this Dail and voted against
the Treaty. After the approval of the Treaty had been overwhelmingly
ratified by the people at a general election, the dissident minority ap-
pointed a ‘President of the Republic’, nominated a ‘Government’
(25th October 1922), and, a few days later, purported to rescind the
Dail resolution approving the Treaty. They could have quoted the
authority of their leader at that time for the rescission of the Ddil
resolution (‘The majority have no right to do wrong’), for their re-
jection of the will of the people expressed at an election which they
had contested (‘The people have never a right to do wrong’), and for
their reliance on the force supplied by the Irish Republican Army
(‘Republicans maintain . . . that there are rights which a minority
may justly uphold, even by arms, against a majority’). On the 14th
November 1925 the ‘Army’ repudiated the ‘Government’. And now,
in 1938, this pitiful remnant of a remnant of the Second Dail, still
claiming to be the lawful Government of the Republic of the whole
of Ireland, purported afresh to delegate its functions to the Irish Re-
publican Army.

Invested with this spurious authority, the Irish Republican Army,
on the 15th January 1939, issued a Proclamation, signed by six signa-
tories, ‘on behalf of the Republican Government and the Army
Council of the Irish Republican Army’. It was posted up in public
places throughout the country, and it was also quoted in full by the
Minister for Justice in the Dail. 2 The concluding paragraph runs :

‘We call upon England to withdraw her armed forces, her civilian
officials and institutions, and representatives of all kinds from every
1 Dail Debates, lxxiv, 1285-6. 2 Ibid., lxxiv, 1288,

590 t EPILOGUE

part of Ireland as an essential preliminary to arrangements for peace
and friendship between the two countries ; and we call upon the people
of all Ireland, at home and in exile, to assist us in the effort we are
about to make, in God’s name, to compel that evacuation and to en-
throne the Republic of Ireland.’

At the same time an ultimatum was served on the British Foreign
Secretary (Lord Halifax). According to a statement made by the
Home Secretary in the House of Commons, this ultimatum demanded
an instant withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland, giving
a time limit of four days for their departure and threatening England
with reprisals if the ultimatum was not accepted. 1

Shortly afterwards the Irish Republican Army began its campaign
against England, but not against Scotland or Wales, with which coun-
tries it does not, apparently, consider itself to be at war. The technique
has become familiar. Time-bombs are placed in postal packages and
carrier-bicycles, or concealed in suit-cases deposited in railway left-
luggage offices, and there has been a certain amount of sabotage.

It was imperative for Mr. De Valera’s Government to meet this
challenge to its authority within the area of its jurisdiction; but the
powers contained in Article 2A of the old Constitution were not re-
produced in the new Constitution. Fresh legislation was accordingly
necessary, and on the 8th February 1939 two Bills were introduced in
the Dail. The first, a Treason Bill, provides for the infliction of the
death penalty for acts of treason as defined in the Constitution. The
other, entitled the Offences Against the State Bill, is roughly analo-
gous to the old Article 2A. It is designed to prevent the usurpation of
the authority of the State, empowers the Government to declare any
particular organization to be unlawful, and authorizes the establish-
ment of special criminal courts. These measures were duly passed by
both Houses and became law, the Treason Bill on the 30th May and
the Offences Against the State Bill on the 14th June.

On the 23rd June, in virtue of the new powers, the Government
issued the Unlawful Organization (Suppression) Order, declaring the
Irish Republican Army to be an unlawful organization; and, on the
same day, the Commissioner of the Civic Guard banned the custo-
mary demonstration at Wolfe Tone’s grave, which had been arranged
for the following Sunday. 2

On the final stage of the Offences Against the State Bill in the
Senate, Senator Desmond Fitzgerald, who had been successively
Minister for External Affairs and for Defence in the Cosgrave Ad-

1 House of Commons Debates, cccl, 1 047. 2 Irish Independent, 24 June 1 939.

GOVERNMENT AND BOMBING OUTRAGES'591

ministration, said that, for the well-being and the good name of Ire-
land, the Government should.include in the Bill adequate powers to
deal with men who sheltered behind the security which they found
they had at home to order unfortunate dupes in England to embark
on a career of crime. Senator Sir John Keane followed on the same
lines, but the Minister for Justice merely said in reply that he did not
know but that there might be certain cases sub judice, and he thought
it would be most improper for him to go into the merits, or anything
else, of those cases. 1 This reply is the more difficult to understand as
the Minister, being a solicitor, is presumably aware that the fact that
certain cases were sub judice need not have prevented him from con-
demning, on moral grounds, the general results of a campaign under-
taken in pursuance of a Proclamation which he himself had read to
theD&il.

In a further effort to elicit the attitude of the Government, Sena-
tors MacDermot and Professor Tierney tabled the following motion
in the Senate:

•That, in the opinion of the Senate, the country is entitled to an
explicit statement from the Government as to the justifiability and the
expediency of bombing activities in Great Britain by Irish citizens.’

Speaking in the debate on the 26th July, Mr. De Valera made a
long speech, in which he expressed surprise at the motion, since he
thought that the Government had made its attitude quite clear.
He referred to the iniquity of partition, the necessity for obedience to
majority rule under the new Constitution, and the injury done to his
own anti-partition policy by the activities of the extremists. But he
nowhere pronounced a forthright condemnation of the bombing out-
rages on moral grounds. 2 We have indeed travelled far from the day
in March 1924 when the Ddil adjourned, on the motion of Mr.
Cosgrave, ‘as an evidence to the British nation and to the civilized
world of the regret and humiliation ’ felt by the Irish nation over the
shooting by members of the Irish Republican Army of unarmed
British soldiers at Cove.

On the 19th July the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provi-
sions) Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, ‘ to prevent the
commission in Great Britain of further acts of violence designed to
influence public opinion or Government policy with respect to Irish
affairs’. It received the Royal Assent on the 28th July, and, under the
powers conferred by it, a number of suspected persons have since
been deported to Ireland,

1 Senate Debates , xxii, 2164-6. 2 Ibid., xxiii, 998-1006.

592 EPILOGUE

The outrages in England continued, and on the 22nd August Mr.
De Valera’s Government issued two Proclamations, bringing into
force Parts V and VI of the Offences Against the State Act. This
enabled suspects to be interned without trial, and a special criminal
court to be set up. On the 24th August the Special Criminal Court
was established, consisting of the five army officers who had formed
the Military Tribunal under the old Constitution. The following day
there was a terrific bomb explosion in Coventry, which killed five
people, wounded about seventy others, and did thousands of pounds’
worth of damage.

On the 14th December, at Birmingham Assizes, two Irishmen were
convicted of the murder of one of the victims of the Coventry explo-
sion and sentenced to death. On the 22nd January their appeal was
dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the execution was
fixed for the 7th February. The 4th February was the Sunday before
Lent, and several of the bishops, in their Lenten Pastorals, renewed
the formal condemnation of the Irish Republican Army which had
been pronounced by the united Hierarchy some years before and
which still stands. As the date of execution approached there was a
crescendo of excitement in Ireland. The most strenuous efforts were
made to secure a reprieve, and persons of all shades of political
opinion and of religious belief participated in them. Mr. De Valera
took the question up with the British Government, and the High
Commissioner (Mr. Dulanty) interviewed both the Dominions Secre-
tary and the Prime Minister. The efforts were unavailing, the two
men were duly executed, and the day of execution was treated almost
as a day of national mourning in Ireland. Flags were flown at half-
mast, and the Dublin theatres were closed. The closing of shops, how-
ever, was to some extent due to the fact that the day in question was
Ash Wednesday.

The proscription of the Irish Republican Army in Ireland and the
Coventry outrage in England occurred during the fateful closing days
of August 1939. The German-Soviet pact of non-aggression was pub-
lished on the 24th. Next day Great Britain and Poland concluded an
agreement for mutual assistance. On the last day of the month the
German Minister in Dublin (Dr. Eduard Hempel) called on Mr. De
Valera ‘to find out what was likely to be the attitude of the Govern-
ment in the event of a European War’. ‘The Minister said that the
German attitude towards our country in case of war would be peace-
ful and that it would respect our neutrality. I replied that, as far as
we were concerned, we wished to be at peace with Germany as well

THE OUTBREAK OF WAR 593

as with other States.’ 1 On the 1st September, without any declaration
of war, the German hordes invaded Poland and began to batter down
that historic bulwark of Catholicism and of European civilization
against eastern barbarism.

A European war being thus rendered inevitable, the Dail and
Senate met on the 2nd September to enact two Bills which postulated
neutrality. The first was designed to remedy a defect in the Constitu-
tion, which enabled emergency legislation to be passed for the purpose
of securing the public safety in time of war but made no such provi-
sion in the case of neutrality during a general war. The Bill extended
the phrase ‘time of war’ to mean a time when there is taking place an
armed conflict in which the State is not a participant. The second Bill
contained the emergency legislation. As no political party was op-
posed to the policy of neutrality, both Bills were passed without a
division; but one or two speakers referred to the possible effect of that
policy on the ultimate unity of Ireland.

Introducing the first Bill, Mr. De Valera said that it was only
natural that, as individual human beings, they should sympathize
with one side or the other. He knew that there were very strong sym-
pathies in regard to the present issues, but he did not think that any-
body, no matter what his feelings might be, would suggest that the
official policy of the State should be other than what the Government
would suggest. He continued :

‘We, of all nations, know what force used by a stronger nation
against a weaker one means?. We have known what invasion and par-
tition mean; we are not forgetful of our own history, and, as long as
our own country, or any part of it, is subject to force, the application
of force, by a stronger nation, it is only natural that our people,
whatever sympathies they might have in a conflict like the present,
should look at their own country first and should, accordingly, in
looking at their own country, consider what its interests should be
and what its interests are.’ 2

On the 3rd September war was declared on Germany by Great
Britain and France, and the British declaration, of course, involved
Northern Ireland in belligerency. The remaining member-States of
the Commonwealth — Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and
Canada — in the exercise of their constitutional right as free nations,
successively ranged themselves on the side of Great Britain. And so
began a conflict from the results of which Ireland cannot remain im-
mune, and of which as yet no man can see the end.

1 Senate Debates, xxiii, 1051. 2 Ddil Debates, Ixxvii, 1-8.

^©VDlCfs

APPENDIX A

PERSONNEL OF THE SENATE

Th e personnel of the Senate throughout its existence will be found
exhibited in the following lists. The figure in brackets after the name
of each Senator indicates his period of office in years, dating from the
beginning of the appropriate Triennial Period. The Triennial Periods
commenced on the 6th December 1922, the 6th December 1925, and
soon.

FIRST TRIENNIAL PERIOD— 1922-5

John Bagwell (6)

Dr. Henry L. Bamiville (3)
William Barrington (9)

T. W. Westropp Bennett (3)
Rt. Hon. H. G. Burgess (6)
Richard A. Butler (3)

Mrs. E. Costello (9)

John J. Counihan (3)

Peter De Loughry (3)

Ellen, Countess of Desart (12)
James G. Douglas (9)

James C. Dowdall (12)
Michael Duffy (9)

The Earl of Dunraven (12)

Sir T. Grattan Esmonde, Bart.

( 12 )

Sir Nugent Everard, Bart. (6)
Edmund W. Eyre (6)

Thomas Farren (9)

Martin Fitzgerald (12)

Baron Glenavy (6)

Dr. Oliver St. J. Gogarty (6)

James P. Goodbody (6)

The Earl of Granard (12)

Mrs. Alice Stopford Green (9)
Captain J. H. Greer (6) 1
Sir John Purser Griffith (9)
Henry S. Guinness (12)
Benjamin Haughton (6)

The Marquess of Headfort (6)
Cornelius J. Irwin (3)

Arthur Jackson (6)

Rt. Hon. Andrew Jameson (6)
Sir John Keane, Bart. (12)
Patrick W. Kenny (9)

The Earl of Kerry (12) 2
Thomas Linehan (3)

Joseph C. Love (3)

Edward MacEvoy (3)

James MacKean (9)

John MacLoughlin (9)

Edward MacLysaght (3)
Thomas MacPartlin (9)

Rt. Hon. Sir Bryan Mahon (6)

1 Afterwards Sir Henry Greer.

2 Afterwards the Marquess of Lansdowne.

597

598

APPENDIX A

Edward Mansfield (3)

The Earl of Mayo (12)
William J. Molloy (9)
Colonel Maurice Moore (9)
James Moran (12)

George Nesbitt (3)

Michael O’Dea (3)

John T. O’Farrell (3)

Brian O’Rourke (9)

Dr. William O’Sullivan (9)

James J. Parkinson (3)

Sir Horace Plunkett (12)

Sir W. Hutcheson Poe, Bart. (12)
Mrs. J. Wyse Power (12)

Dr. George Sigerson (12)

The Earl of Wicklow (6)

William Butler Yeats (6)

Senator Lord Glenavy and Senator Douglas were elected respec-
tively Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

The following vacancies occurred during the First Triennial
Period:

Edward Mansfield (resigned 12th December 1922, without having
taken his seat)

Thomas MacPartlin (died 20th October 1923)

Sir Horace Plunkett (resigned 28th November 1923)

Sir William Hutcheson Poe, Bart, (resigned 9th December 1924)
Dr. George Sigerson (died 17th February 1925)

The following were elected to fill these vacancies respectively :
William Cummins (21st February 1923)

Thomas Foran (28th November 1923)

Samuel L. Brown, K.C. (12th December 1923)

Dr. Douglas Hyde (4th February 1925)

John O’Neill (5th March 1925)

At the Triennial Election, 1925,
Senators failed to secure re-election :
Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
Richard A. Butler
Peter De Loughry
Dr. Douglas Hyde
Cornelius J. Irwin
Joseph C. Love

the following eleven outgoing

Edward MacEvoy
Edward MacLysaght
George Nesbitt
Michael O’Dea
John O’Neill

SECOND TRIENNIAL PERIOD— 1925-8

John Bagwell (3) T. W. Westropp Bennett (9)

Dr. Henry L. Barniville (12) Sir Edward Coey Bigger (9)
William Barrington (6) Rt. Hon. H. G. Burgess (3)

Sir Edward Bellingham, Bart. (12) Mrs. E. Costello (6)

599

PERSONNEL OF THE SENATE

John J. Counihan (6)

William Cu mmi ns (12)

Ellen, Countess of Desart (9)
James Dillon (12)

James G. Douglas (6)

James C. Dowdall (9)

Michael Duffy (6)

The Earl of Dunraven (9)

Sir T. Grattan Esmonde, Bart. (9)
Sir Nugent Everard, Bart. (3)
Edmund W. Eyre (3)

Michael Fanning (12)

Thomas Farren (6)

Martin Fitzgerald (9)

Thomas Foran (12)

Baron Glenavy (3)

Dr. Oliver St. J. Gogarty (3)
James P. Goodbody (3)

The Earl of Granard (9)

Mrs. Alice Stopford Green (6)

Sir Henry Greer (3)

Sir John Purser Griffith (6)

Henry S. Guinness (9)

Benjamin Haughton (3)

The Marquess of Headfort (3)

Sir William B. Hickie (12)

Arthur Jackson (3)

Rt. Hon. Andrew Jameson (3)
Sir John Keane, Bart. (9)
Cornelius Kennedy (12)
Patrick W. Kenny (6)

The Earl of Kerry (9)

Thomas Linehan (12)

Francis MacGuinness (9)
James MacKean (6)

John MacLoughlin (6)

Rt. Hon. Sir Bryan Mahon (3)
The Earl of Mayo (9)

William J. Molloy (6)

Colonel Maurice Moore (6)
James Moran (9)

Joseph O’Connor (12)

John T. O’Farrell (12)

Michael F. O’Hanlon (12)
Stephen O’Mara (12)

Brian O’Rourke (6)

Dr. William O’Sullivan (6)
James J. Parkinson (12)

Mrs. J. Wyse Power (9)
Thomas Toal (12)

The Earl of Wicklow (3) •
William Butler Yeats (3)

Senator Lord Glenavy and Senator T. W. Westropp Bennett were
elected respectively Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

The following vacancies occurred during the Second Triennial
Period :

The Earl of Dunraven (resigned 27th January 1926)

Stephen O’Mara (died 26th July 1926)

Martin Fitzgerald (died 9th March 1927)

The Earl of Mayo (died 31st December 1927)

The following were elected to fill these vacancies respectively :

' Samuel L. Brown, K.C. (10th February 1926)

Patrick J. Brady (26th January 1927)

Patrick J. Hooper (23rd March 1927)

Sir Walter Nugent, Bart. (1st March 1928)

600 APPENDIX A

At the Triennal Election, 1928, the following four outgoing
Senators failed to secure re-election :

Patrick J. Brady

Sir Nugent Everard, Bart.

Benjamin Haughton
The Earl of Wicklow

The following eight outgoing Senators did not seek re-election :

Rt. Hon. H. G. Burgess
Edmund W. Eyre
Baron Glenavy
James P. Goodbody

Sir Henry Greer
The Marquess of Headfort
Arthur Jackson
William Butler Yeats

THIRD TRIENNIAL PERIOD— 1928-31

John Bagwell (6)

Dr. Henry L. Barniville (9)
William Barrington (3)

Sir Edward Bellingham, Bart. (9)
T. W. Westropp Bennett (6)

Sir Edward Coey Bigger (6)
Samuel L. Brown, K.C. (6)
Alfred Byrne (6)

Mrs. Kathleen Clarke (g)
Michael Comyn, K.C. (3)
Joseph Connolly (9)

Mrs. E. Costello (3)

John J. Counihan (3)

William Cummins (9)

Ellen, Countess of Desart (6)
James Dillon (9)

James G. Douglas (3)

James C. Dowdall (6)

Michael Duffy (3)

Sir T. Grattan Esmonde, Bart. (6)
Michael Fanning (9)

Thomas Farren (3)

Thomas Foran (9)

Dr. Oliver St. J. Gogarty (6)
The Earl of Granard (6)

Mrs. Alice Stopford Green (3)
Sir John Purser Griffith (3)

Henry S. Guinness (6)

Sir William B. Hickie (9)

Patrick J. Hooper (3)

Rt. Hon. Andrew Jameson (6)
Thomas Johnson (6)

Sir John Keane, Bart. (6)
Cornelius Kennedy (9)

Patrick W. Kenny (3)

The Marquess of Lansdowne (6)
Thomas Linehan (9)

Sean E. MacEllin (3)

The McGillycuddy of the Recks (3)
Francis MacGuinness (6)

James MacKean (3)

John MacLoughlin (3)

Rt. Hon. Sir Bryan Mahon (6)
Sean Milroy (9)

William J. Molloy (3)

Colonel Maurice Moore (3)

James Moran (6)

Sir Walter Nugent, Bart. (3) •
Joseph O’Connor (9)

Joseph O’Doherty (9)

John T. O’Farrell (9)

Michael F. O’Hanlon (9)

Brian O’Rourke (3)

Dr. William O’Sullivan (3)

601

PERSONNEL OF THE SENATE
James J. Parkinson (9) William Sears (9)

Mrs, J. Wyse Power (6) Thomas Toal (9)

Seumas Robinson (9) Richard Wilson (6)

Senator T. W. Westropp Bennett and Senator Patrick W. Kenny
were elected respectively Chairman and Vice-Chairman. On the
death of Senator Kenny, Senator Patrick J. Hooper was elected
Vice-Chairman.

The following vacancies occurred during the Third Triennial
Period:

William Sears (died 23rd March 1929)

Mrs. Alice Stopford Green (died 28th May 1929)

The Marquess of Lansdowne (resigned 5th June 1929)

Sir Nugent Everard, Bart, (died 12th July 1929)

Sir Bryan Mahon (died 24th September 1930)

Patrick W. Kenny (died 22nd April 1931)

Patrick J. Hooper (died 6th September 1931)

The following were elected to fill these vacancies respectively :

Sir Nugent Everard, Bart. (10th April 1929)

Miss Kathleen Browne (20th June 1929)

Laurence O’Neill (20th June 1929)

Richard A. Butler (23rd October 1929)

Michael Staines (I2th December 1930)

Arthur R. Vincent (28th May 1931)

George Crosbie (5th November 1931)

At the Triennial Election, 1931, the following five outgoing
Senators failed to secure re-election :

William Barrington
Richard A. Butler
George Crosbie
William J. Molloy
Sir Walter Nugent, Bart.

FOURTH TRIENNIAL PERIOD— 1931-4

John Bagwell (3) Miss Kathleen Browne (3)

Dr. Henry L. Barniville (6) Rt. Hon. Alfred Byrne (3)

Sir Edward Bellingham, Bart. (6) Mrs. Kathleen Clarke (6)

T. W. Westropp Bennett (3) Michael Comyn, K.C. (9)

Sir Edward Coey Bigger (3) Joseph Connolly (6)

Samuel L. Brown, K.C. (3) John J. Counihan (9)

602

Mrs. E. Costello (3)

William Cummins (6)

Ellen, Countess of Desart (3)
James Dillon (6)

James G. Douglas (9)

James C. Dowdall (3)

Michael Duffy (9)

SirT. Grattan Esmonde, Bart. (3)
Michael Fanning (6)

Thomas Farren (9)

Thomas Foran (6)

Hugh Garahan (9)

Dr. Oliver St. J. Gogarty (3)
The Earl of Granard (3)

Sir John Purser Griffith (9)
Henry S. Guinness (3)

Sir William B. Hickie (6)

Rt. Hon. Andrew Jameson (3)
Thomas Johnson (3)

Sir John Keane, Bart. .(3) ’
Cornelius Kennedy (6)

Thomas Linehan (6)

Sean E. MacEllin (9)

APPENDIX A

Francis MacGuinness (3)
James MacKean (9)

John MacLoughlin (9)
Daniel H. MacParland (9)
Sean Milroy (6)

Colonel Maurice Moore (9)
James Moran (3)

Joseph O’Connor (6)
Joseph O’Doherty (6)

John T. O’Farrell (6)
Michael F. O’Hanlon (6)
Laurence O’Neill (9)

Brian O’Rourke (9)

Dr. William O’Sullivan (6)
James J. Parkinson (6)

Mrs. J. Wyse Power (3)
William Quirke (9)

David L. Robinson (9)
Seumas Robinson (6)
Seumas Ryan (9)

Michael Staines (9)

Thomas Toal (6)

Arthur R. Vincent (9)

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks (9) Richard Wilson (3)

Senator T. W. Westropp Bennett and Senator M. F. O’Hanlon
were elected respectively Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

The following vacancies occurred during the Fourth Triennial
Period :

The Rt. Hon. Alfred Byrne (resigned 10th December 1931)
Joseph O’Doherty (deemed to have vacated his seat, 24th January
1933, on being elected a member of the Ddil)

The Countess of Desart (died 29th June 1933)

Seumas Ryan (died 30th June 1933)

Arthur R. Vincent (resigned 21st February 1934)

George Crosbie (died 28th November 1934)

Francis MacGuinness (died 30th November 1934)

The following were elected to fill the first five of these vacancies
respectively :

George Crosbie (2nd January 1932)

Edmund J. Duggan (19th April 1933)

603

PERSONNEL OF THE SENATE

Ernest Blythe (2nd January 1934)

Raphael P. Keyes (2nd January 1934)

Patrick Lynch, K.C. (28th September 1934)

No by-elections were rendered necessary by the deaths of Senator
George Crosbie and Senator Francis MacGuinness. Both these
Senators were due to retire at the end' of the current Triennial Period.
Neither had offered himself for re-election and at the time of their
deaths the Triennial Election was in progress.

At the Triennial Election, 1934, the following four outgoing
Senators failed to secure re-election :

Mrs. E. Costello

Sir T. Grattan Esmonde, Bart.

Sir John Keane, Bart.

James Moran

The following four outgoing Senators did not seek re-election :
George Crosbie
The Earl of Granard
Henry S. Guinness
Francis MacGuinness

FIFTH TRIENNIAL PERIOD— 1934-6

(The Senate was-abolished by the enactment on the 29th May 1936
of the Constitution (Amendment No. 24) Act, 1936)

James G. Douglas (6)

James C. Dowdall (9)

Michael Duffy (6)

Edmund J. Duggan (9)

Michael Fanning (3) ’

Thomas Farren (6)

Seumas Fitzgerald (9)

Thomas Foran (3)

Hugh Garahan (6)

Dr. Oliver St. J. Gogarty (9)

Sir John Purser Griffith (6)

Denis D. Healy (9)

Sir William B. Hickie (3)

Thomas V. Honan (9)

Rt. Hon. Andrew Jameson (9)
Thomas Johnson (9)

John Bagwell (6)

Dr. Henry L. Barniville (3)
Patrick F. Baxter (9)

Sir Edward Bellingham, Bart. (3)
T. W. Westropp Bennett (9)

Sir Edward Coey Bigger (3)
Ernest Blythe (9)

James J. Boyle (9)

Samuel L. Brown, K.C. (6)

Miss Kathleen Browne (9)

Mrs. Kathleen Clarke (3)
Michael Comyn, K.C. (6)
Joseph Connolly (3)

John J. Counihan (6)

William Cummins (3)

James Dillon (3)

604

APPENDIX A

Cornelius Kennedy (3)

Thomas Kennedy (9)

Raphael P. Keyes (9)

Thomas Linehan (3)

Patrick Lynch, K.C. (9)

Se&n E. MacEllin (6)

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks (6)
James MacKean (6)

John MacLoughlin (6)

Daniel H. MacParland (6)

Sedn Milroy (3)

Colonel Maurice Moore (6)
Joseph O’Connor (3)

John T. O’Farrell (3)

Michael F. O’Hanlon (3)
P&draic 6 Maille (9)
Laurence O’Neill (6)

Brian O’Rourke (6)

Dr. William O’Sullivan (3)
James J. Parkinson (3)
Mrs. J. Wyse Power (9)
William Quirke (6)

David L. Robinson (6)
Seumas Robinson (3)
Thomas Ruane (9)

Michael Staines (6)
Thomas Toal (3)

Richard Wilson (9)

Senator T. W. Westropp Bennett and Senator Michael Comyn,
K.C., were elected respectively Chairman and Vice-Chairman. On
the resignation of Senator Comyn, Senator David L. Robinson was
elected Vice-Chairman.

The following vacancies occurred after the commencement of the
Fifth Triennial Period :

Seumas Robinson (resigned 11th December 1935)

Michael Comyn, K.C. (deemed to have vacated his seat, 24th
February 1936, on being appointed a Circuit Judge)

Owing to the abolition of the Senate, these two vacancies were not
filled.

TABULAR STATEMENT OF BILLS (OTHER THAN MONEY BILLS)

RECEIVED FROM THE DAIL

Consequen-

tial

amend-
ments made
by Ddil,
Senate con-
curring

Further
amend-
ments
made by
Senate and
agreed to
by Dail

CN m CS —1

Not agreed
to by Dail.
Bills passed
under
Article 38a
of Con-
stitution

i— i

Not agreed
to by Dail
and. not
insisted
on by
Senate

r*H

Not agreed
to by Dail,
but amend-
ment made
by Dail in
lieu. Senate
concurring

CM r~l

«n

Agreed to
as

amended
by Ddil,
Senate
con-
curring

VO VO CM MCO CM

Agreed
to by
Ddil

r-i \o oo oo t~- — <o\ , '4-oo— 'inwroin
inr~MDmCT\t--r'-oo<Ni— <cor'itn
— < CN — i i-» <-i CS CS

1,719

Number

amend-

ments

r-a\r-'mo\ooi>-o\cNT}-u->rniri
—> fS < *- <

1,831

Number
of Bills
amended

CM CM

182

Number
of Bills
received

■^■■^•■^•rOOIcomcSrOtN'sf'q'cn

489

Year

dtSNMNNtNoinnnnmntn
0\0\ ^0\ONC\0\CMJvCMJ\0\0\0\C\

Total

605

APPENDIX C

LIST OF BILLS AMENDED BY THE SENATE

Number of

a *3

<D qJ

J &
S -g
£ S

< £

• T3
e c

S 2

g £

•3 «
§ 13

g X*

3 g
13 g*

*3 flJ
C <2
<u c
P o
cr o

T3 60

O R) '

£ -
60 O

< z

■tf ~

£ v p

£ |

2 «

3 £

^3 bf)

W *>4
M 4J

"c; a

^ £

P T3
- C
<U o

13 £

c p

u u,
co o

>?£ .

2 £

h o' 6 ■*■* 2 S ^

u « « - n ^ o

»G _ Jr; o m

*j •« Ti <U ”T3 C

U U U M U U)

LL i- u. 60 o t-

W W] OJ) « ^ 00 _

<<*/-> <

1 ~

r- V)

<u ~

— ■ co t~-

CQ rp

0 «
t/j

*« 2 o

o CL, Z

o 2
P g
C £

w £

'o O
£ o-i

O *p
•r~i

■t* w

f 8

P C

T 3 <U

< U

•g Oh .2

Tg §>

JJ .6 O
p Ti S

I-, v-4

Rl C3 >

p p c

a o $

o o —

• H »H »f4

•S .S .S;

u u u

o _
■a -3

g «

yp u
pj u

p - p
P 2

P'S

8 A

2 £
o o
U U

cs m
cs cs

ON ON

606

1 not agreed to; and 1 not agreed to but
amendment made by Dail in lieu. Senate
agreed to the amendment as amended by Dail
and to the amendment in lieu, and did not in-
sist on the amendment not agreed to.

LIST OF BILLS AMENDED BY THE SENATE 607

O §|

>•» c

J S 5

•J3 <u

® g

•o M
« P
TJ _
S3
<u

B H

ca ^
W C
P <0

o B
+■* P

"O o

8 6

SO O
p -*-*

* ^ CJ

s &

O TJ

-*-* «

-p 22 P
qj ah c

*— t

*aS

•ta

S3
S3

T3
S3
p

0
*2
P

c .52

<D in
CO (3

X) O

•o C

« 13

•n »sn

3 T3
SJ u

1 S

C4 C

* IV O

O CO
•*-» •

-a 2
<u x>

BO u
rt u W

BOSJ
03 H

•a

•*-.

*->

•a

4-»

< I

o o

4-» 4-»

*d
a>

.... H

00 00

< <

+J T)

•O <u

8 ts &
w» § J
.5 O
«n Z

• wS

•a

+~*

m • *X3 * m

O O «•> O O

+-• 4-4 QJ •*-* •*-»

TJ T3 W)T3 X5

O (O fl O) u

W y ^ « p

& oh o feb fcb

< < 55 < <

in vn

c- cs

If O H to (f)

'S'

o
• ••**
4-*

•S 33
P S

*12 *£3

*c o

43 ts
.S3 «

.ft s

P«

►4

*§ «

‘C

33 o

S "g
'S'sS

i a

05 s -^

U-s

*§ "c S <5

p P o ”

i— } I— 1

PQ jo

g o

•55 oa
« ’>
43 g

in ^

P. &*

a o

o As

8 I

w &

4-J 4~>

C2 G

o o

s a

C S3
M t-<

o o

S o

O O

73 r p ?a
o o co
o o
hJ h4

* »~s

3 «

« u

2 n n
« p >-

O H-S
O j-

CO g

•o 73
c ^
p fu

a •?

o 5

4-* G

03 O

*5 ‘2

§ z

« s>

o ?

in o
^ (2
c &*

5 £?
o g

« a

w S, .

o &

p <«
o P
’S3 CO

g .a

A A

Number of

Year Title of Bill amendments Agreement or otherwise by Ddil, etc.

inserted

1923 Public Safety (Powers of Arrest and

Detention) Temporary Bill 2 Agreed to.

608

o o o

4-» 4-* 4-J

T 3 * 0 ' T 3

CD CD CD
<D <U <D

bb DO bb

< < <

APPENDIX C

3 S-S

q is

^ §

0) G

’CJ g CO

g -a

<U *3 ft

g .2 y

w | »

c J

rt 3 C

5 . 4 )

o <u 6

+■• <2 G

•a o 3

4 J O 3

W) ej O
c3 ra ■*-*

-a

a jS

&p:S

TO p.

feb

4-*

4-4

<0 W)

w .S

p §

<u .5

ft G

*§ a

§ a

• ° VG

U .ft

a s

^ ’B

. <u
o «->

a to

. G

T3 co

&«'

flj

G ■

4->

O <N

3 O

G O O O O

-rt +-» ■*-' 4~>

■G
Q T3

^ a

^ -a

• " u

o <u

O 6

+- T3 CO
T3 D K ^

u u a ^3

«*, <U <U fcn

bb W) W) w
■< <1 < <7\

C/3

o
G
*G

•3

5P G
G
<0
OT

H (S OO

t-h on

. m

^ vo io r)

0 \

a 5
« a
« S
.3 3

O O

p a

T3 B S

G co PQ
G G ^

4J O CO

tJ O G
O 1> O
Ph P4 'co

•M W o

■§•§£
Q Q

<4-1

4->

IP CO

PQ w

'w G

■ M Qj

.P G

1 O

G w

ffl M O
a G
g • 3 cr 1

C T3 "S
^G « (-1

*3 3 jjq

jssl

w Mb

C o

22 *

ago

*G O -H

LIST OF BILLS AMENDED BY THE SENATE 609

r~4 *rj

* y~i 2

»oa B

Q |

>v 03
<13

c§

w>na

o «

13 .

XJ 3

5 xj

C3 <y

&
Q «

W 4->

^ 2

Jo d

£> 00

60 X
rt O

O O

•n „

. ft (y

2 EbS

XJ X)
u <o

a a

60 Mob
<; ■< on

X) «l

<U ..

8 o

Eb a

n> v©

■M

•r~*

■w

oooo oooooooo

-v-> +-* -W -V-i

XJ XJ XJ XJ
u u u «J
pupg

Eb Eb Eb Eb
-<<-<■<

XJ X) XJ T3 XJ XJ
o o o o o a)
<D<UOO<U<U

Eb Eb Eb Eb Eb Eb
<<<<<<

o XJ

a •
xj xj a «
« g ep-s;
■ ® s

&6.-.1

^1*

< <

•tH

• a

w *i

U 03

Eb «

cs .5

maa
»-i o

m vt (n h

oo oo

— i ^ <N <N

i-* <r>

ps m S

<~\ (JO ^

03 «)

.a p

4 a

MSS

•r«

"43

*§

4-a

•3

-rt 5
o
o
M

610

APPENDIX C

f«4

oooooooooooo

'o-a'O'a'a’O'O’a'O'a'aTj
<u fu a* o o <u aj tu ;> cj o y

<UU<U<UO<U<UU<UIUIUIU
t., C ii w- & fc i_ C »- S-I K

5) iiJ) E.o to 60 M 6J) Eb bD M U) W)

<<<<<<<<<<<<

•a

^ 3 'Ss

§i K Si

•43 •* «*, t_ (

R S <u

R 53 —

•—(•—( cs

^ I

•S

52 —i

5 °

O O

VJ S
•4H .*H

lH O
Pw DO

ffl

4-1

'w*' CO
. Jh

:=3 o j§

m’-gi

g>-s 2

"gas
u o o

m u u

£2

e/3

a a c

Kj 3 H

W ® o
o> W)

CJ c3
O DO

tv *"«

.a O
_ S g

co "
tJ <U t-i

o £4 a «

<3^2B

Ih .H fl ✓"N

0 8 g

■S r 2«P* O
g CO <M , P

a o O o

f§

eti

u S

u ij
- 2 tn
« $ u
v PS

CO ll

Juries (Dublin) Bill 1 Agreed to.

Local Authorities (Officers and Employees)

Bill 3 Agreed to.

Local Government Bill 9 8 agreed to ; 1 not agreed to. Senate did not

insist.

Railways (Existing Officers and Servants)

Bill 1 Agreed to.

Shop Hours (Drapery Trades, Dublin and

Districts) Bill 2 Both disagreed with. After conference, 1 insisted

on by Senate and agreed to by Dail ; 1 amended

LIST OF BILLS AMENDED BY THE SENATE 611

*C 0

•ts

-a

O 3 s

ja'-Tj
~~ p

O p
TO &

a ^

feb o

3 3

■g-

O O
ts +-*

a TO
o v
CO u

Jb cj

•3 ■

Q §

p-.'* 3

x> a
« '■£
3 g
E E

£.8
■8 o

CJ *rj

§ w
« to
to 3
3

■3 3

•o §
8 «S

W ,

CO ■+-»
^ TO

. *v (L>
— p

rr 2 £
5 ? 00
Q co

t c

*-» co

• m

yCj

ico

■g

o o o o

^ *d ...
X 3 T 3 T 3 T 3 Wj~

5x> & So & eb 3 w

< < < < < rt

-O

■w

%-4

T3
P

CO w
oo *3
• •-< r~«

•O H

•a

tuo

a T3

a <y
5 TJ
Q 3

^ s

•° 3
T3
<w
X)

C
<o

O O
*>» •*-*

T 3 C TJ
p p
p p

& eb
< <

T3
w 3
3 V

o £

■*■» 3
T 3 O

u a
22 ~
W) o

3 •*-*

•« £>

2 &
CO

bn G
CN

tf N O
m »-<

cn oo
to

■tt OO ro
Vl !N «

CQ «

a.|

rS •"*

w 00
>^.S S3

+! 3
3 gffl

o o .a

W H

w>sl

Number oj

Year Title of Bill amendments Agreement or otherwise by Dail , etc.

inserted

1927 Land Bill 13 Agreed to.

Medical Practitioners Bill 1 Agreed to.

612

APPENDIX C

•0

■*-»

• c*

~ °’
QJ

QJ X!
V- qj
bQ qj
G

V 3

o o o o o

*-) ■*_> 4-> +J

T) *0 TJ T 3 D
<UQJ<U<U<U
<U<U<UQJQJ

bi) bb bb bb bb bb

^ ~ o
•w ro <■<
‘G G X 2

p :§»o

^ °

3 I

o «
«■* S

to <U

4 -J fll

G &

.5 «

•u U “

« ■*■* :g

<u 5
<-■ o

G X)
QJ

- 1 «
•“ ’w

o a

« .£“

r» _ ■

QJ X)
O QJ
G X)
QJ G

XJ .

<u +J _
QJ U5 XJ

O O O

G 1 C

TO ««-<

<L>

’d x S S
Sbfebkb* 1 "

< < <C vo

,QJ

U-f

£J

4-»

C 5

<Q in N rf H

vo *— < m

oo (N AD

3 =3

3 ^ w

CQ W

" i a

C/5 C

o S ri
■g *8 PQ £

8*2 a «

w Sog
b g a
2 a si b

<< QJ *G G
XI OXf? 5

o .9 *8 ^

(A g

W Q

M w ,a -H

S' •a e .§

^ 'g 1 1

j3 tjj § o
rt < u u

m —

ouufeO

g^g a

a SI I

53 < O

Housing Bill 1 Agreed to.

Illegitimate Children (Affiliation Orders)

Bill 2 Agreed to.

Industrial and Commercial Property
(Protection) (Amendment) Bill 1 Agreed to.

LIST OF BILLS AMENDED BY THE SENATE 613

o o o o

<-> T 3

_ iu X

* 0(0 05

4 » Ut *rj
c c u w S
6d feb ao feb w
< < < < -a-

^ *0 13
u u y
(U P JJ

oooooooooo

uouvououuo

ii 1 1 ii it Ti ti ri ii t- 1

bOcoEbSbtotJDoowjaobo

<<<<<<<<<<

(N OD r- f' VO
C*>

N^HtOr-OOCV'tVOt^*-'

0-1

5 .

■§

0. a

8 «

„ o

& I O *

rf\ * **w ‘

Its*

■a .2

*c3

•5S

Out

-s ^

*S«

o ^

■C §

.g §

O 05
w .«

ii 2
•§ ^
pu

^ m

^ «-
« 3

*3 «
rt a
c ca
ca -s

w H

CL,

»!>•*

•s.

8 ’

6
•3
C

C3 y
rjj 2

a «

c
E

ad &

< <

eo a
c 3

« 03
**•«

T3 Pk

Up"

PUN

C/J

Number of

Year Title of Bill amendments Agreement or otherwise by Dail, etc.

inserted

1930 Town Tenants Bill 36 32 agreed to ; 3 agreed to as amended by Dail ;

1 not agreed to but amendment made by Dail

614

APPENDIX C

52 O

§ g
8 •§

x c
c S

8 6
8 to

fi 43

«G 4->

•*-*

T3 *3
<u g

(U TO

l-i

5prG

<u Q

X
<U

XI
G
<D

• r*

.G TO G3

X) .

<D <M

<D C/3
«. • »— <
KT» CO

S? C

Cd *tpH

o o o o

4-J -*— ) 4— > <4—1

X X X X

(I U U HI
0> <U <U <L>

feb & bb feb

< < < <

o o o

4— 1 -4—* 4— »

-d T3
u u o
<D 0) <u

&b &b feb

< < <

c\ cs cs c4 n -h n

bX)

C/3

G
tu

8
X
G

I
s

d 5 Ah *cd
rs o 4->

PQ
G3 o

• «— < CO

pq c
_ o

■g

"to

fft

*4— 1

'52

6u0 ‘"X

G PQ
‘•S

TO G
2
Ul

«8
G O
O et

«*-4 <L>

, L j VL/

« § .a

X
to 9
G S
’55

3 ft

K S

a a -2 Q

fli Ip— <

,3 O

^ Sg

w H

I' 3

£ ’§
TO O

•8
4— »

’5

»G o
<N

(X,

1932 Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill 44 29 agreed to ; 1 5 not agreed to. Bill passed (with

the 29 agreed amendments) under Article 38a
of the Constitution.

Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill 4 Not agreed to. Bill passed under Article 38a of

the Constitution.

LIST OF BILLS AMENDED BY THE SENATE 615

« 9

&
4-» O

S o

a 0

«r

9 ^3
O ©
o -m

rt g c
o co «

•M . 9
93 «

•a 'cs g

8 Q |

6X) >•> O
(8 *° 9

•£> © rt

0*0

a «

•9 5
<u rt

B s

60 g
rt o

O g

~ ‘0

« I
© «
w ©

60 9

« 3

*— I

«w

•o

4-4

_C0

”55

9 3

X> XI

4-J

— r fa

Q rt

>~,”0
x> a

« 0

”2 d

rt ©

5 w
c -9

6 o

_5 o
11
I s

* s

rt «

• *■9

•a

E _
60 ©
rt co

XI ‘

3 « T 3

§|g

" j. |

XS ■«

•§Q S

X5 O

O
vo

o _f

. . »i-4

fa *9

”53 Q

c fa
© 9

8 s

W *rH

> a

■*S

”■£3

■S ”9

9 2 x
60 :

rt m

.2 «

3 9

9 9
cr ©

9 « ~

8 « 53

w — -■ •

^ •ft’O to

« a a fa

1 G g S
«2 >*•« ’g

•9 ^ >9 ©

go«

C3 pCJ

8 ffg

!Pa|

rt X

O 9 *rj

a « s

« w 9

o o’

4-1 *3

0 o

•*«J -+-J

TJ *G

1 i
60 60
< <

•9

”3

4-4

•9

4-4

o o

4-* 4*1

■9 *9
© u
© ©

TJ
«

E - 3
60 m

&§>«•£

-< < vo

tj- in

CN t-c

P
, 3
3

•— H

s «

'S' O
o ©

3 8
9 a

CO .<5.

co
9
O

9
_rt
*—<

8
w
w

co *5

3 *■=«

s a

v— ' cT’JS

O o

^ .2 ‘55
*?

, *■«

•9
9
rt
»— *

o ~
9 £Q
rt ^

S ?
O

60 .’0
9 *Z

CO p

•■a

■fa

CtJ

CO
©

g o

to *9
XI O

<£ s a

'sl.sS E. S -2 73 s

g 5

2Z r-4
2 .©

CO ■*-*

few

s a

4- »

CO 4— ».

B ^
>5 o

g 9

g ©

5- 1 S

9< ©

< o

APPENDIX C

§ «-
a o

•d -

•— * 53

"O <L>

•d

(/I

• •M

4 -i

4 ->

•a

-*-*

C /3

■ in

"(O

•«N

4 -*

4 -»

•a

• (H

«y

•d

—4

4 ^

*Tl

.s£

4-* a

•d

g y

4-i

H tn

n cs

•d —

c id

• •»

o *S

£ D

rt •

■ d

-4-*

« 5 S

•— • CO

• * .3 o 3

2 d c ■-

O O O O T3 So Cl

Jj « « « O » O ■*“

* o * o * d*d H "K ■£ e
o o o o en'co . o

2 2 Si a « c o E

on to tn to M —

< < < < 52

d 3

^ a c

** r \ +-*

o o c

■w o

-o ^ H

<y X5 45
o ^2

to « o
rt « E

o o o o 2

-*-*'*' -T 3
*d id *d *d o
o o u o u

y o u o (-

on to tn tn «

■< ■< <C m

•rj -o *3
1 1 8 '
& l *

o ' =:

. 0^1

sj Js s _<

■a ^ ^

5 22 -S

— CS ON — f

c\ vo m r- t*- ^

— — CO

•5 c
pq u

oT g

CN O

d "

Z'8

4-i 41

O o

.§ u

C 6

u W

J ? S £

£ 5 *

d 5 -
.2 6
5 2
■ 3H .

a -2

o o

u u

Cl,s~

6 m

U oT

£g

O W
CU^-s

=3 3

•rt O

« *5 S

c/a rt QQ

60*3 ^

2 mm

r u c

Q m =5

CO '•' W

3 to g —

8 3 m s

&J 3 “ *d

• § s s g

C/3 . Ml

iu S S rn w

u d 3 ^ “
> W 'g 2 £

U 4 o c rt _*

OT X ^ M 3

— • £ «3 34 O

« ! £ c co --
3 O O 3 ca

3 5 § 2 Jz ;

o o
33 13
« -2

o \

LIST OF BILLS AMENDED BY THE SENATE 617

+*•«

•a

-a

■ a
c °

e «

E '5>

rt c
o

-c o
c

o *o

S P O

* *43 8
SOfe

O *”

CO T3
V

V .

<U -M
t- CO

M'Z
C5 C
• »>(

O o O O *ri

*-* .+-* 4~i 4-« ~

*d *0 T) *0 <D
<U O (D O fcV

2 2 2 2 ^

M W 60 W) N

2 _
00 rt
c3

o §

4-U

•tj

■u

g J3 £2

*-< *-> nr

t/>

-o

O W o

4-» (D +-»

*d T) T) T) TJ T) fen-O

ycjucjfiju^cj
uuuuuC , ** , £!
oo oo oo ob to oo o to

<<<<<<'£,<

o o o o o

(3 *0

« §j

O id
X 5 SO
« rt

J? s

s »
J 3 c

’S P

1 2

•« E

g-g
cs «

5 E

'*3 <

2 3

2 S
§ ^
to .g

6 a

«• §
U E

<U X)

13 g
■*■* «

o\ »-

•O •— • CN

hWCfOi-lNHH

**"T

E
2 S
H H
•a t>

C3 c3
O O

PC PC

?»■*

>■■■<

• *•»
PQ

• •—«
CP

• *>m
4~*

4-»

C/3

liwT

P=l

•W

«s

*CO

ex.

*£b

+-»

•a

o'®

*g«!

o t?

•M

<L>

X) S3

a jg
a W

*-* o

«« fl
O «J

« E

O T 3

•rs a

.Ti <L>

P-»rp
? «

6 'Sf
Z. §

CCS P

^ t2
p c
-*-> a>

■I j

c3 ^S*

S s w
2 S fl

| a-o
<! < O

E <2 *2
’C «3 o ^
OQQ

ra-

Number of

Year Title of Bill amendments Agreement or otherwise by Dail, etc.

inserted

1934 Electoral (Revision of Constituencies) Bill 4 Not agreed to. Senate did not insist but made

1 further amendment. Further amendment

618

APPENDIX C

*Crf

+■>

•3

4-1

4-4

. . . ^ .

o o o £ o

4-4 4-4 4—* ’Tj 4-*

nj nO nO Sj

u u u t; t)

<U<UCJCLQ<JJ

■S s

« a
-a

o §

d S
a no
cd a
co 5

o I

*8 S

<D CO
U

erf T 3
<D

4-i -*->

r> Vh

— C

2 3

feb.52

•d

£1

4->

3 4-5
W to

*44 .-4

*— 1 co

—4 a

G *-<

ri .44

C *o

o o o o o o o

<U 4-4 4-1 4-4 4-1 4-1 4-4

h c io Sr h bo.R
bb bo bi> bb ^ oil w
<3 <3 <3 <tj _i

GnOnononOnOnOnJ

d(L)UO(D(D<DQ)

<DO<D<D<U<D<DO

^ tab feb ob & tab bb Sb

<3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3

C/3

M N O C\ 'O 'O N
m 1-1 nj*

:§

4-1

4 R

.§

•W

•f*

R VS
o PQ
Oh 50
id .2

o c

>> 4-!

'fig
8 «
S

S >

0 w

O a>

, •« CO
Crf

3 G **H
nO m w W

££££

!§

Crf

S 8
S R

O d

CJ 4-4

r *a

03 co
co

no <3

Pn dn

pq g

t§

•a

PQ
42 d

W «m

b Q.
R

a p

«no

s «=?

O H

'3 s
a h

o -£3 .

^ .52 ^
3 S> d

3 <0 ©

o R
Oh'S
■* o

•c

gg
qq «

•C' Oh

£h <D
O <D
PhR
CO

« *d
Cm 0
O d

a r

o U

U c*-<

w o

d vh
•rf ID

^ G

C/3 J3

Ok to
8 §

£ £ co 53 $ 55

■8

LIST OF BILLS AMENDED BY THE SENATE

* • « o

O Xl O O +■*

** <U . ** ** tJ

-o SJ « "O TJ <u

<5 &b*s u « f! ^

Ed « c SJ K feb.2

ftO^ a) M R <«
< M < < OO

MM M — < CY

CO *->

* H %
fr’S ©

• *-« TO 'g

APPENDIX D

MONEY BILLS RECEIVED BY THE SENATE

Number of Bills to Number of

Year Number of Bills which recom- recommendations Acce P ted b ? DM Rejected by Dail

mendations made

ti-

c-i cN >-i ■— 1 i ro

N VI h

(N *— 1 1— I •— i rj- TJ- in IO Tt

CO 1-H 1-H T-H

r-l CN

Tf- CO ii CN

HHintnn'ciooonno(SHeo , t

p)nTfin\ONDOO\OH(So^in®

CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCOCOCOCOCOCOCO

0\0sG\0\0\0s0\0\0s 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\

620

Total

APPENDIX E

LIST OF MONEY BILLS TO WHICH RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE SENATE

Number of Number Number

Year Title of Bill recommendations accepted rejected

made by bail by Dail

<-• M f» tn

xr *■— * rO

fO rf CS CS — < «-<«-< cs *-< fO VO

rorj- Ol CN

.2 O v — 4 w . < WH

W • *"4 • ■ — 1 * 4—4 ■ 4-4

s cffl
'Co' 1 ’
Q.CL, <0

oT. a
« >>«
Q. S 3

sj.s

<<Jfa

f Ctj fc. r 4 « \

ISf VS 'ZZ 3 Sfijj; L) O

pq pa cq g gw wo.
uweuSHooo 1

U U U St S»u o u

r* H L-i S*» r< r<

C C 0
co n cO

£7 c c a,

u co co co

W -■ : - - — 444 W W

.s.s.s §*a g s s

fa tu W W ft, pH ft,

-<0- ir> so oo as

<r>

CSrXNNN

ro cn

Q\ ON ON OV ON

OS Os

*— t

f — i r-H *— < * t— <

*— 4

*— 1

r— <

621

{X,

•— i

cn 4 h>

£} 3

os >->

C /5

H->

■i_i

3 vrj
<U v 9

O WO

VO 1

•A

lit
O
o

O ’■"

jj 4

Vi r>

t3 '

s><n

oo 25

•C o

a, 3

.3 PQ

*■§
*0 3
o £3
8 8
3 M
tii 3

fl} rj

sp.!

4 -> 4 ->

CO o
3

•3 uc
3 0)
O 43
o t*
<u 3
CO c2

_! O

r3 3

pq ~
&•■§
Is"

5. os

5 c-S

O OS

O &

d -*-T

s .,8

*3 h

T 3 '"7
<u wo
3 CN
bn os

oo 3

. - n

"d r-T

O 3
3 1-1

6 u
3 3

d <U

2 O

WO Dh
<N flj

Os to

*d
3
(N
<N

H->

H-*

c* °®

3 o

3 «

S3 Oh

> O
X

-gO

O q
O j=j .

« +3 so

CO CN

0 7!

-o’gS

o g> S

'S’ CO 2

I §

*d bp
o 3

*4— » • *-<
•p« ±2

43 3

’3 o

a s

C*_

o «s

3 O

.2 $
co «0

a «o

X ^

O r^H
O *3

3 i_t
O O

■h ri
c n C

<U .O
Oh'*"

. O

W-i j3

O +3

Cj_|

■go

CO
<n

3 $

cd *3

'o'

.§

!h W J

3 3 &

o «

*H 3
« O

“ 'S
O O

Oh c n

.8 8

> S3

O Oh

W O

S-8

a»l

33 o

1i»

3 1

C/3

• H

H->

a , .

<u wo

3 cs
Ph os
3 1-H
CO

‘S
Q

3
o>

O
• ^

o os

P4 ^

<U = h'

.a s

> pq

S3 ^
co 3

— < <o

S a

622

Constitution (Removal of Oath) Removal of Oath from Constitu- Passed, 28th June 1932, with amendments with
Bill, 1932. tion. which the D&il refused to agree. Sent again to

Senate, 1st March 1933. Amendment carried
on Second Stage, declining further considera-

BILLS SUSPENDED BY SENATE

623

I’S

W 2
• JP
co Pw

SO •

o\ in
1-H co

o O'

a - 4

■8

ofo

3 o'
O +f
o s
o 3
00 o

"I <»

I 2

O c
■ ■

o O

S w)
'5? o
P$

S *r

*0 w

'd in
o co
« ON

W) r— <

«cj

V-<

M 'S

P o\
& «

s -5f

5 I
°° «
ts 0

0
c
(1

**o

XTk

C3
*— 1
o

43 bb
13 13
O —

•s S>

■3 tS

1 o

o o

r % rr?

3 £3

2 *3
fr*5
o

U T3 U &

Q yd

5
"i o

h 2

c
o

- 3

W -2 55

(3 P

I f! o 8

> G o-g
<!

1-1

23
3 2

3 «

•42 ra
6b «
<

o «*i

CTi

i -4

1936. Enactment resolution passed by Ddil,
23rd April 1936. Signed by the Governor-
General, 24th April 1936. ( Text,pp . 413-17.)

625

APPENDIX G

BILLS INITIATED IN THE SENATE

Title of Bill

Public Holidays Bill,
1923

Dyestuffs (Import
Regulation)

Repeal Bill, 1923

League of Nations
(Guarantee) Bill,
1923

Valuation (Postpone-
ment of Revision)
Bill, 1923

Oireachtas Witnesses
Oaths Bill, 1924

Private Bill Costs
BiU, 1924

Coroners Bill, 1925

Land Bill, 1925

Shop Hours (Barbers
and Hairdressers,
Dublin and Dis-
tricts) Bill, 1925
Shop Hours (Drapery
Trades, Dublin and
Districts) Bill, 1925

Name of Introducer
Edward MacLysaght

James G. Douglas

Thomas Linehan

James G. Douglas
James G. Douglas
Peter De Loughry

Richard A. Butler
Thomas Farren

James G. Douglas

Remarks

Remaining Stages not
proceeded with.

Passed unamended by
the Ddil.

Passed unamendedby
the Ddil.

Passed unamended by
the Ddil.

Withdrawn after con-
sideration by Select
Committee ; used as
basis for Coroners
(Amendment) Bill,
1926 (q.v.).

Withdrawn after
Second Stage.

Rejected on Second
Stage.

Passed unamended by
the Ddil.

626

BILLS INITIATED IN THE SENATE

627

Title of Bill '

Coroners (Amend-
ment) Bill, 1926

Registered Accoun-
tants Bill, 1927

Wild Birds Protec-
tion (Amendment)
Bill, 1927

Bodies Corporate
(Executors and
Administrators)
Bill, 1928

Children Bill, 1928

Dublin City and
County (Relief of
the Poor) Bill, 1929
Intoxicating Liquor
(Amendment) Bill,
1929

Town Planning and
Rural Amenities
Bill, 1929

Wild Birds Protec-
tion Bill, 1929

Shop Hours (Drapery
Trades, Dublin and
Districts) Bill, 1930

Trustee Bill, 1931

Animals (Anesthe-
tics) (Amendment)
BiH, 1933

Slaughter of Animals
Bill, 1933

Name of Introducer

Samuel L. Brown,
K.C.

James G. Douglas

Samuel L. Brown,
K.C.

James G, Douglas

Patrick J. Brady
Thomas Johnson
Patrick J. Hooper
Thomas Johnson

Samuel L. Brown,
K.C.

James G. Douglas

Samuel L. Brown,
K.C.

John J. Counihan

John T. O’Farrell

Remarks

Passed by the Dail
with eleven amend-
ments.

Rejected on Second
Stage.

Rejected by the Dail.

Passed unamended by
the Dad.

Passed by the DaB
with one amend-
ment.

Rejected by the DaB.

Passed unamended by
the Ddfl.

Not considered by the.
DaB and kBled by
the dissolution on
the 19th January
1932.

Passed by the DaB
with seventeen
amendments.

Rejected by the DaB.

Passed unamended by
the DaB.

Rejected on Second
Stage.

Not considered by the
DaB.

628

Ti "eo /m APPBN DIX (

C °Z ,mi0n y eC/7 ""-°*«er

xr er, 6meot Lames Q r-,

2S > *1,1934 G - D °Was

k ten sion of J ° Se ph Con

«£■**«** oano "y

Nurses’ and Mid.
vives’ Pensi 0ns JaiT >es c n
BlII > 1935 Do *dall

Clarks

D SlndXn bythc

££- 5*£

Leave f Q .

BiI > refuse™

D ^Zd°iap b y‘ hc

2»"“S£

APPENDIX H

NUMBER OF SITTING DAYS
AND DURATION OF SITTING

Year

Number of
sitting days

Total time 1

Average dura-
tion of sitting 1

1922

1923

144

1924

128

1925

119

1926

1927

113

1928

1929

132

1930

104

1931

132

1932

117

1933

1934

154

1935

136

1936

Total

535

1704

3 10

(over whole
period)

Average number of sitting days per year for the thirteen completed
years 1923-35: 40.

1 To nearest ten minutes.
629

APPENDIX I

AVERAGE ATTENDANCE
IN EACH CALENDAR YEAR

Year

Average attendance

Percentage

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

Average over

whole

period

Note . — The total membership occasionally fell below 60, on account
of the existence of one or more casual vacancies.Due regard has been
had to this fact in the compilation of the above table, the figures being
adjusted to a notional total of 60.

630

INDEX

Note. — T.D. signifies Teachta DM, or Member of the Dail.

Abdication of King Edward VIII:
constitutional action taken by mem-
ber-States of Commonwealth as re-
sult of, 478-81; alternatives for
Irish Free State, 481-2; actual
course taken, 482-7

Abyssinia: ( 1935) Mr. De Valera’s
speech at Geneva on war in, 434;
Opposition dissensions over sanc-
tions, 434-5; passage of Bill to im-
pose sanctions, 454-5

Adams, John and Samuel: use as
authorities in debates on Senate
Abolition Bill, 373, 394-8; quota-
tions from John on dangers of
Single Chamber, 395; quotation
from John on opinions of Samuel,
397; Samuel’s considered view,
397-8

Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill,
1932: constitutional position re-
garding, 346-7

Aiken, Frank, T.D., Minister for De-
fence, 1932-9, Minister for Lands,
1936: 0923) an anti-Treaty leader,
110; succeeds Lynch as ‘Chief of
Staff’ of Irregulars, 111, 185; pro-
clamations to Irregulars, 111, 114;
on continuance of Civil War, 129;
0932) incident at French Lega-
tion, 292; refusal of services of
Army Band at Eucharistic Con-
gress function if Governor-General
present, 293; visit to Republican
prisoners on being appointed Minis-
ter, 29S; addresses Army at Wolfe
Tone’s grave, 296; sponsors Army
Pensions Bill, 316; reply to ques-
tion re Government policy on
armed resistance to State, 316;
0934) and non-admission of Blue
Shirts to Senate Strangers’ Gallery,
found to have committed breach of
privilege, 355-8; on Senate amend-
ment to Defence Forces Bill, 359;
estimates cost of Military Service
Pensions Bill, 404; 0935) outrage
against, at Tralee, 439

Aliens: Bills dealing with, 448-54;
position of Commonwealth coun-
tries 453-4

Alton,’ Professor E. H., T.D.: 0937)
supports Commonwealth amend-
ment to Draft Constitution, 496;
0938) elected to Senate, 572
Amery, Rt. Hon. L. S., Secretary of
State for Dominion Affairs, 1925-
9 : replies to Mr. Churchill in debate
on Statute of Westminster, 253
Andrews, Rt. Hon. J. M., Minister of
Labour (Northern Ireland), 1921—
37: on employment of Catholics,
22-3

Anglo-Irish Agreements, 1938: refer-
ences to, 289, 476; negotiations for,
574, 576; details of, 577-9
Anglo-Irish Treaty, 1921 : Irish signa-
tories and general effect of, 3, 46-7 ;
popular enthusiasm for, 48; posi-
tion of Griffith and Collins with re-
gard to, 48-9; Catholic hierarchy
unanimously in favour of, 49, 59;
Mr. De Valera pronounces against,
50; Ddil debate on, 50-4; formal'
ratification, 55; ratified at general
election, 62; (1932) abrogation of,
306, 463; (1937) formal repeal, 498-
9. Agreements amending: (1924) per-
sonnel of Boundary Commission,
176; (1925) boundary, etc., 178;
(1938) Treaty ports, 577-8
Anglo-Irish War, 1919-21 : origin and
character of, 44; effect of English
public opinion and King’s appeal,
45; end of hostilities, 45
Anthony, Richard S., T.D.: (1931) ex-
pelled from Labour Party for vot-
ing for Military Tribunal Bill, 262;
(1932) on I.R.A. intimidation, 297;
(1936) speaks on enactment motion.
Senate Abolition Bill, 468; (1937)
re-elected as an Independent, 501
Archdale, Rt. Hon. Sir E. M., Minis-
ter of Agriculture (Northern Ire-
land), 1921-33: on employment of
Catholics, 23

633

634

INDEX

Army Comrades Association: ( 1932 )
principles and activities of, 10-11,
297; protects traders against I.R.A.
activities, 298; (1933) ensures free
speech at general election, 11, 321—
2; adopts uniform of blue shirt,
329. For subsequent history, see
Blue Shirts

Attorney-General: remuneration of,
510; (1937) attention of, drawn by
High Court to evidence and judge-
ment in Cork shooting case, 426-7.
See also Costello, Geoghegan, Ken-
nedy, Lynch, Maguire, O’Byrne

Australia : salary of Governor-General
of Irish Free State the same as that
of Governor-General of, 490; early
bicameral systems in, 392-3 ; minis-
terial representation in Senate,
207; method of enumerating par-
liaments, 564; (1930) supports Irish
Free State candidature for seat on
League Council, 251-2; (1932)
cablegram of Prime Minister of, to
Mr. De Valera, 288; reference by
Mr. De Valera to legislative free-
dom of, under Statute of Westmin-
ster, 309, 313; Senator Connolly on
the people of, 314; (1935) position
under Aliens Act, 454; (1936) ac-
tion taken by, pursuant to King’s
abdication, 480; reference to, in
Executive Authority (External Rela-
tions) Act, 485 ; (1937) Prime Minis-
ter of, attends Coronation, 489 ; at-
titude of Government of, to new
Constitution, 570; (1938) General
Mulcahy on, 582. See also New
South Wales, Queensland, South
Australia; Tasmania, Victoria

Bachelors’ Walk, Dublin: (1914)
shooting at, 35

Bagwell, John: (1922) nominated to
Senate, 90; (1923) house burnt by
Irregulars, 103; kidnapping and es-
cape of, 104-5; (1925) speaks in
divorce debate, 168; (1928) retains
seat at triennial election, 241, 242;
(1934) speech on Wearing of Uni-
form Bill, 360-1; re-elected, 428,
429

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley, Prime
Minister, 1924-9 and 1935-7, Lord
President of the Council, 1931-5
(afterwards Lord Baldwin) : (1925)
signs Boundary Agreement, 178,
179; (1931) warning to House of
Commons re restrictive amend-
ment to Statute of Westminster,
254; (1937) message from Mr. De

Valera to, re abdication legislation,
481

Balfour Declaration, 1926: quoted,
248 ; referred to, 1 88, 450, 485

Banking Commission, 1934: (1938)
Report of, 583

Barrington, William: (1922) elected to
Senate, 94; (1925) member of Pri-
vate Bill Joint Committee at time of
divorce controversy, 164; (1931)
loses seat, 278

Barthdlemy, Professor Joseph: views
on Second Chambers quoted by
Senator Douglas, 386, 389

Barton, Robert C., T.D.: a signatory
of the Treaty, 46

Beaslai, Piaras, T.D.: quoted, 44, 51,
55

Bellingham, Sir Edward, Bart.: (1925)
elected to Senate, 155, 156; (1934)
votes against Senate Abolition Bill,
389; votes against outgoing Chair-
man in contest for Chair, 448

Belton, Patrick, T.D.: (1927) leaves
Fianna Fdil and takes seat in D&il,
216; (1932) convenes meeting lead-
ing to formation of National Centre
Party, 299; (1936) connection with
Irish Christian Front, previous
political career, 474-5; opposes
non-intervention in Spain, 475

Benedict XV, Pope: (1922) congratu-
latory messages on Treaty, 55

Bernard, Most Rev. Dr., Provost of
Trinity College, 1919-27: (1917-18)
member of Irish Convention, 75;
(1921-2) a representative Southern
Unionist, interview with Griffith,
75 ; interviews with Griffith'and Mr.
Lloyd George, 76; takes part in
formal negotiations with Provi-
sional Government, 76, 78; dis-
satisfaction with character of Sen-
ate, 80-1

Bigger, Sir Edward Coey: (1925)
elected to Senate, 155; (1927) pro-
poses amendment restoring to
women liability for jury service,
209; (1934) re-elected, 428, 429;
(1935) in charge of Nurses’ Pen-
sions Bill, 523

Birkenhead, Lord: see Smith, Rt.
Hon.SirF.E.

Black, William, K.C. (afterwards
Hon. Mr. Justice Black), Judge of
High Court since 1939: (1937)
counsel for defence in case arising
out of Cork shooting affray, 424 _

Black and Tans: nickname of Auxi-
liary Police, arrival in 1920 and ex-
cesses of, 44, 333; English public

INDEX

635

opinion and, 45; Southern Union-
ists alienated by, 74

Blackmore, C. H. (afterwards Sir
Charles Blackmore): ( 1925) Secre-
tary to Northern Ireland Cabinet,
signs Boundary Agreement, 178

Blue Shirts: {1933) uniform of Army
Comrades Association, 329; name
changed to National Guard, 330;
General O’Duffy elected Director-
General, 330; objects of, 330; de-
nounced by Mr. De Valera, 331;
declared an unlawful association,
334; becomes constituent element of
United Ireland Party, 11, 335 ; name
changed to Young Ireland Associa-
tion, 335; outrages against, 336-7;
declared an unlawful association
under new title, 338; name changed
to League of Youth, High Court
refuses Attorney-General’s applica-
tion regarding, 338; ( 1934) mem-
bers assailed in Drogheda com-
mended by District Justice for self-
control, 343; references to, in de-
bates on Wearing of Uniform Bill,
343-4, 360-2; breach of privilege in
refusing admission to Senate of
members of, 355-8; I.R.A. activi-
.ties against, 406; changing charac-
ter of, and - dissensions in, 406-7;
split in, Commandant Cronin ap-
pointed Director-General, 408;
( 1935 ) General O’Duffy ’s section of,
becomes National Corporate Party,
435; {1933-5) statistics of convic-
tions by Military Tribunal of mem-
bers of, 434; {1936) further split in,
departure of Commandant Cronin
and end of, 11,474

Blythe, Ernest, T.D., Minister for
Local Government, 1922-3, Minis-
ter for Finance, 1923-32, Vice-
President of Executive Council and
Minister for Posts and Telegraphs,
1927-32: {1922) opinion of first
Constitution Draft, 72; {1925) signs
Boundary Agreement, 178; {1926)
signs Ultimate Financial Settle-
ment, 201-2, 286-7; attitude to
Senate motion thereon,. 202; {1927)
tribute toKevin O’Higgins, 211-12;
{1928) on utility of Senate revision,
550; {1931) re passage of Military
Tribunal Bill, 275; {1932) on Gov-
ernment attitude to I.R.A. activi-
ties, 298 ; {1933) refusal to surrender
licensed firearm, 331; domiciliary
visit by police, 338; {1934) elected
to Senate, 355; amendments to
Defence Forces Bills, 358-9, 411—

12; re-elected to Senate, 428; {1935)
support for Conversion Loan, 454;
elected to Committee of Privileges,
555 ; {1936) speech on Senate Aboli-
tion Bill, 461

Boland, Gerald, T.D., Parliamentary
Secretary to President of Executive
Council and to Minister for De-
fence, 1932-3, Minister for Posts
and Telegraphs, 1933-6, Minister
for Lands, 1936-9: {1928) attack on
Senate, 233-4; {1933) reply to
Senate’s request for correction in
news broadcast, 354
Boundary Agreement, 1925: main
provisions, 178; ratified by legisla-
tion, 180; Mr. De Valera’s attitude
to, 180-1; hasty enactment of Bill
to implement, 198-200
Boundary Commission: provided for
in Treaty, 176; appointment of
Northern Ireland representative
and Commission set up, 176; news-
paper forecast of findings, 176;
superseded by 1925 Agreement, 178
Breen, Daniel, T.D.: {1922) on both
panels at general election, 63 ; {1923)
capture of, in Civil War, 111; {1927)
takes seat in Ddil, 191, 216; intro-
duces Bill to abolish Oath, 19 1
Brennan, Major-General Michael:
Chief of Staff, 412

Brennan, Colonel Patrick: Superin-
tendent of the Oireachtas, and non-
admission of Blue Shirts to Senate
Strangers’ Gallery, 355-7
Briand-Kellogg Pact: Fianna Fdil
opposition to, formal approval by
both Houses, 250, 277
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Sir Basil, Minister
of Agriculture (Northern Ireland)
since 1933: on employment of
Catholics, 22

Brown, Samuel Lombard, K.C.:
{1923) elected to Senate, apprecia-
tion, 92, 144-5; work as draftsman
of private members’ Bills, 521;
{1924) amendments to Courts of
Justice Bill, 145, 534, 536, 537; re-
sists attempt to restrict Senate’s
power over delegated legislation,
541, 542; reads Mrs. Green’s Cas-
ket message, 157; {1925) preserva-
tion of ancient monuments, 119;
chairman of Joint Committee on
Patents and Copyright Bill, 521;
member of Private Bill Joint Com-
mittee at time of divorce contro-
versy, 164; loses seat, 155; {1926)
re-elected, 599; {1927) opposes ex-
emption of women from jury ser-

636

INDEX

Brown, Samuel Lombard — continued
vice, 209 ; seconds motion re funeral
of Kevin O’Higgins, 213; {1928)
re-elected, 241, 242; {1929) spon-
sors Wild Birds (Protection) Bill,
523-4; {1932) opposes Removal of
Oath Bill, 312, 314; safeguarding
amendment to Emergency Imposi-
tion of Duties Bill, 551-2; {1933) on
parliamentary control over dele-
gated legislation, 530; {1934) spon-
sors Bill to restore referendum for
constitutional amendments, 410;
amendment to Revision of Con-
stituencies Bill, 417; re-elected, 428,
429; {1935) speech on Citizenship
Bill, 450-1 ; on personnel of Com-
mittee of Privileges, 555 ; {1936) on
Land Purchase Bill, 557 ; speech at
final meeting of Senate, 464-5

Browne, Miss Kathleen A.: {1929)
elected to Senate, 601; {1931) re-
elected, 278; {1932) opposes Re-
moval of Oath Bill, 312; {1934) and
non-admission of Blue Shirts to
Senate Strangers’ Gallery, 355-7;
re-elected, 428

Broy Harriers: {1933) nickname of
armed Auxiliary Police, 333; de-
bates in Senate on, 333-4, 348, 420;
protect anonymous buyers at cattle
sales 419

•Brugha, Cathal, T.D.: {1919) Secre-
tary for Defence in D&il Cabinet,
views on physical force, 44; {1921)
opposes Treaty, 50

Buckley, Daniel, T.D., Governor-
General, 1932-6: {1931) on dis-
covery of I.R.A. dump at Hell Fire
Club, 259; {1932) appointed Gover-
nor-General, 294; {1937) gratuity
and pension awarded to, on aboli-
tion of office, 489-90

Burke, James A., T.D., Minister for
Local Government and Public
Health, 1923-7, Parliamentary Sec-
retary to Minister for Finance,
1927-32: {1924) criticism of Senate,
147

Butler, Richard A.: {1922) elected to
Senate, 94; {1923-5) revision of
agricultural Bills, 145; {1925) loses
seat, 598; {1928) unsuccessful can-
didate, 240; {1929) re-elected, 601;
{1931) absent during passage of

'' Military Tribunal Bill, 275; loses
seat, 278

By-elections (Senate): see Casual
Vacancies

Byrne, Rt. Hon. Alfred, T.D., Lord
Mayor of Dublin, 1930-9: {1928)

elected to Senate and resigns from
D&il, an Independent, 241, 242,
268; {1931) resigns seat, 301-2;
{1932) Government inquiry made
to, re invitation to Governor-
General, 293; summons meeting to
form united constitutional party,
300; {1937) re-elected to D&il, 502;
{1938) possible candidate for office
of President, 573

Byrne, Most Rev. Dr., Archbishop, of
Dublin: {1922) chairman of confer-
ence between Treaty and anti-
Treaty leaders, 60; {1923) pastoral
on military revolt, 109; approval of
Senate prayer, 565; {1927) presides
at requiem mass for Kevin O’Hig-
gins, 213

Canada: versional discrepancies in
Bills, 564; ministerial representa-
tion in Senate of, 206, 207; statis-
tics of work done by Senate, 382;
{1921) mention of, in Treaty, Mr.
Lloyd George’s letter to Griffith,
70; {1926) delegate of, on Do-
minions’ right to representation on
League Council, 188; {1930) Irish
Free State succeeds, on League
Council, 251; {1932) references to
constitutional position of, in de-
bates on Removal of Oath Bill,
308-10; reference by Mr. De Valera
to legislative freedom of, under
Statute of Westminster, 309, 313;
and right of appeal to Privy Coun-
cil, 326; Senator Connolly on the
people of, 314; ( 1934) Mr. De
Valera criticizes Senate of, 375;
{1935) position under Aliens Act,
454; {1936) Senator Milroy on
Senate of, 460-1; action taken by,
pursuant to King’s abdication, 479;
reference to, in Executive Authority
(External Relations) Act, 485;
{1937) attitude of Government of,
to new Constitution, 570; {1938)
General Mulcahy on, 582

Carson, Sir Edward, K.C. (afterwards
Lord Carson) : {1913) head of Ul-
ster Provisional Government, 34;
Lord Glenavy’s association with,
117; {1919) name called at first
meeting of D&il, 43; {1922) parlia-
mentary question re shooting of
members of R.I.C., 264

Casement, Sir Roger: {1915) attempt
to recruit Irish Brigade in Ger-
many, 36; {1916) landing in Ireland
and arrest, 36; conviction for trea-
son, speech from dock and execu-

INDEX

637

tion, 37 ; ( 1934) uniform of Volun-
teer Force said to be based on that
of Irish Brigade recruited by, 358
Casey, Most Rev. Dr., Bishop of
Ross: condemnation of murder of
Admiral Somerville, 443
Casket: gift to Senate by Alice Stop-
ford Green, 157-60; resolution re
disposal of, at final meeting, 464-5
Casual Vacancies (Senate): changed
method of filling, 272-3
Catholic Hierarchy: (1918) opposi-
tion to conscription, 42; (1921)
unanimously in favour of Treaty,
49; (1922) joint statement on mili-
tary revolt, 4, 59-60; joint pastoral
on military revolt, 4, 64-6, 67, 101 ;
attitude of anti-Treaty party to-
wards, 67; (1923) pastorals con-
demning Irregulars, 109-10; (1931)
joint pastoral condemning I.R.A.
and Saor Fire, 264; accused of par-
tisanship, 265; (1933) warnings
against I.R.A. and communism,
328; (1939) opposition to conscrip-
tion in Northern Ireland, 586-7;
(1940) renewed condemnation of
I.R.A., 592. See also under sur-
names: Byrne, Casey, Cohalan,
Gilmartin, Harty, Logue, Mc-
Namee, MacRory, O’Brien, O’Do-
herty, O’Donnell

Chairman of Ddil: remuneration of,
508, 510; no robes worn, 563 ; func-
tions in regard to Money Bills, 545,
548; functions under Import Du-
ties Act (1932), 551-2; functions
under post-abdication legislation,
483, 484. See also Fahy, Hayes
Chairman of Senate: given a casting
vote, 89; remuneration of, 508, 509,
510; no robes worn, 563. See also
Glenavy, Westropp Bennett
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Neville, Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, 1931—7,
Prime Minister, 1937-40: (1932) on
financial dispute, 287; takes part in
conference re financial dispute, 289;
(1938) negotiates London Agree-
ments, 574, 576, 577 ; Mr. De
Valera’s telegram to (Munich cri-
sis), 584; (1939) and conscription in
Northern Ireland, 586, 587; (1940)
Mr. De Valera’s appeal to, re
Coventry executions, 592
Childers, Erskine, T. D. : (1922) execu-
tion of, 115

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S., Sec-
retary of State for the Colonies,
1921-2, Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, 1924-9; (1922) a signatory

of the Treaty, convenes conference
between representatives of Provi-
sional Government and Southern
Unionists, 76; presides at final
meeting, 78; (1926) signs Ultimate
Financial Settlement, 202, 287;
(1931) proposed restrictive amend-
ment to Statute of Westminster,
253-4; (1935) I.R.A. extremists on,
442

Circuit Court: (1924) established un-
der Courts of Justice Act, 150, 532-
3. Rules of, 534, 536-7
Citizenship: Bills dealing with, 448-54
Civil War, 1922-3: 55-67, 99-115;
responsibility for, 3-4; effect on
Irish political development, 5-6;
Constituent Assembly postponed
owing to, 83; decision not to re-
new, 129

Clan-na-Gael: and 1916 insurrection,
36

Clann Fireann : (1926) foundation and
objects, 183; (1927) policy at June
general election, relations with
Fianna Fdil, 190; failure at election,
193. Reference to, 267
Clarke, Mrs. Kathleen: ( 1916) execu-
tion of husband and brother, 436;
(1928) elected to Senate, 240, 241 ;
(1932) represents Fianna Fdil at
Wolfe Tone’s grave, 296; (1936) dis-
sent from motion of sympathy on
death of King George V, 436
Coburn, James, T.D.: (1927) member
of National League, returned at
September general election, 222
Cohalan, Most Rev. Dr., Bishop of
Cork : (1935) on class war, 434
Colijn, Dr. H., Prime Minister of the
Netherlands, 1933-9: chairman of
World Economic Conference, 1933,
rules Senator Connolly out of or-
der, 327

Collins, Michael, T.D., Chairman of
Provisional Government, 1922:
.(1918) a leader of Irish Volunteers,
42; (1921) a signatory of Treaty, 46;
not a protagonist of Treaty except
in a secondary sense, 48; repudiates
charge of exceeding instructions,
51; and ‘Document No. 2% 51-2;
(1922) receives transfer of Dublin
Castle, 55; signs agreement with
Sir James Craig, 55; chairman of
Constitution Committee, 69; agrees
to postpone general election, 56;
intimidation at Cork meeting of,
56; efforts at compromise with
anti-Treaty party, 60-1 ; agreement
for pact election, 61; disregards

638

INDEX

Collins, Michael — continued
pact, 62; on effect of Civil War on
Constitution negotiations, 73; on
cause of Griffith’s death, 64; death
of, 64; {1932) ceremony at me-
morial to, discontinued after change
of Government, 333; ( 1934) Sena-
tor Jameson on promises made by,
416; (1935) I.R.A. extremists on,
442

Colum, Pddraic: on Constitution of
1937, 492-3

Committee of Privileges (Money
Bills): constitutional provisions for,
545; (1935) set up under Land Pur-
chase Bill, 552-8

Comptroller and Auditor-General:
amendment to safeguard, in Senate
Abolition Bill, 366

Comyn, Michael, K.C.: (1928) elected
to Senate, 241; (1931) re-elected,
278; (1934) defeated in contest for
Chair, elected Vice-Chairman, 448 ;
(1935) challenges Chairman’s ruling
re Land Purchase Bill, 554; propo-
sals for personnel of Committee of
Privileges, 555; opposes Second
Reading of Bill, 556; (1936) vacates
seat on appointment as Circuit
Judge, 447

Condorcet, Marquis de: on Second
Chambers, 372, 381

Connolly, James: and 1916 insurrec-
tion, 36

Connolly, Joseph, Minister for Posts
and Telegraphs, 1932-3, Minister
for Lands and Fisheries, 1933-4,
Minister for Lands, 1934-6: (1928)
elected to Senate, 240; leader of
Fianna Fdil Party, 267 ; (1929) mo-
tion re salaries of Chairman and
Vice-Chairman, 509 ; attacks United
States, 250 ; criticism of diplomatic
representation, 251; (1931) speech
on Military Tribunal Bill, 276;
(1932) remuneration as Minister,
510; speech on Removal of Oath
Bill, 313-14; moves Government
amendments to Bills, 317; (1933)
delegate to World Economic Con-
ference, ruled out of order by chair-
man, 327; (1934) attempts to ini-
tiate Local Government Bill in
Senate, 410; opposes Senate Bill to
restore referendum for constitu-
tional amendments, 410-11; re-
joices in disappearance of cattle
trade with Britain, 327-8; objects
to motion re Cork shooting affray
and leaves Chamber, 419; (1935)
describes Senate as a hand-picked

body, 353 ; (1936) proposes motion
of sympathy on death of King
George V, 436; absent from debate
on Senate Abolition Bill, 459, 460;
appointed Chairman of Commis-
sioners of Public Works, member
of Second Chamber Commission,
491

Conscription: (1918) British Act to
apply, to Ireland, 41 ; impossible to
enforce, effect on Nationalist Party
and Sinn Fein, 2, 41-2; (1939) pro-
posed application of, to Northern
Ireland, 585—7 ; of Irish citizens in
Great Britain, 587-8

Constitution of 1922: genesis, 68-82;
publication, 61-2, 82; Articles of
Treaty obligation, 72; enactment,
83-4; method of amending, 305,
497; repeal, 499

Constitutional Amendments: affect-
ing Senate: minor amendments,
152-3; ministerial representation,
269-72; casual vacancies, 272-3;
Money Bills, 547-8; composition
and powers, 234-9; reduction of
suspensory power (abortive), 350-
4; abolition of Senate, 362, 366—
402, 455-61, 466-9; affecting D&ii:
life ofDAil, 281 ; sessions, 563; abo-
lition of university representation,
412-17; affecting relations with
Commonwealth : removal of par-
liamentary Oath, 304-15, 324-5;
powers of Governor-General, 325-
6, 563; abolition of right of appeal
to Privy Council, 325-6; citizen-
ship, 448 ; references to King and
Governor-General deleted, 482-4;
referendum, etc.: abolition of re-
ferendum and initiative, 228-30;
extension of period for constitu-
tional amendments without referen-
dum, 230, 273; restoration of re-
ferendum for constitutional amend-
ments (abortive), 410-11, 522;
military tribunals, etc.: 215, 261-5,
274-6; affecting Government: en-
largement of Executive Council,
204

Constitution of 1937: ( 1930-5 ) refer-
ences by Mr. De Valera to possi-
bility of, 12-13, 351, 457, 477;
(1936) promise of, 14, 467; (1937)
publication, 491; outline of provi-
sions, 170, 492-6, 524; method of
enactment, 14, 497-9; comes into
operation, 503; attitude of other
member-States of Commonwealth
to, 569-70; (1939) amendment of,
593. Inapplicability to a united Ire-

INDEX

639

land, 25. Plebiscite on, see Plebis-
cite

Cooney, fiamonn, T.D.: (1928) and
attitude of Fianna Fill to appre-
hension of murderers of Kevin
O’Higgins, 228

Cooper, Major Bryan, T.D.: (1922)
unsuccessful candidate for Senate,
appreciation, 93; (1925) member of
Private Bill Joint Committee at
time of divorce controversy, 164;
(1927) supports ministerial repre-
sentation in Senate, 207 ; advice to
Mr. Jjnks, 220; joins Cosgrave
Party, 221

Cork Cattle Sale Yard; Senate motion
on shooting affray at, 419; judge-
ment of High Court, 420-7; appeal
dismissed by Supreme Court, 427

Coronation, 1937: Mr. De Valera’s
attitude to, 488-9; filmrof, banned
byI.R.A.,489

Cosgrave, William T., T.D., Presi-
dent of Dail, 1922, President of
Executive Council, 1922-32, Minis-
ter for Finance, 1922-3, Minister
for Defence, 1924, Minister for Jus-
tice, 1927, Minister for External Af-
fairs, 1927: general appreciation, 6;
(1916) part in insurrection, 38;
(1917) elected Sinn F6in M.P., 39;
(1918) internment of, 42; (1922)
classifies Articles of Constitution
Bill, 83,364; nominations to Senate,
90; nominations for elected half of
Senate, 93; (1923) house burnt by
Irregulars, 100; signs Financial
Agreement, 286; foundation of
Cumann na nGaedheal, 181; peace
conditions (Civil War), 1 12; on Mr.
De Valera’s alternative proposals,
113; dissuades Dr. Sigerson from
resigning Senate, 106; difference
with Senate on Indemnity Bill, 118;
appreciation of Senate’s work, 131—
2; (1924) condemns shooting out-
rage at Cove, 138, 591 ; criticism of
Senate, 147; Senate recommenda-
tion to Finance Bill carried against,
in Ddil, 551 ; on initiation of Gov-
ernment Bills in Senate, 122, 520;
signs Agreement re Northern Ire-
land member of Boundary Com-
mission, 176; (1925) motion re di-
vorce and general attitude, 1 65, 1 69 ;
signs Boundary Agreement, 178 ; on
results expected from Boundary
Agreement, 179-80; (1926) on de-
fence of State against outrage, 189;
(1927) on campaign to abolish
Oath, 191-2; attitude to Treaty and

Oath, 194-5; on attitude of mem-
bers of Judiciary to Public Safety
Bill, 261 ; (1928) resists use of Ini-
tiative to abolish Oath, 228-9;
(1929) on ministerial representation
in Senate, 269; on extension of
period for constitutional amend-
ments without referendum, 273;
(1931) letter to Mr. Baldwin during
passage of Statute of Westminster,
254; (1932) shouted down in Cork,
296; threats against, 297; (1933)
policy at general election, 320-1;
disorder at Dublin meeting, 321 ; on
his experience in election campaign, .
322; censure motion on General
O’Duffy’s dismissal, 330; Vice-
Chairman and parliamentary leader
of United Ireland Party, 335; (1934)
on Dundalk bombing outrage, 341-
2; on Abbe Sieyes, 372; (1935) per-
sonal popularity of, 406; Chairman
of United Ireland Party, 433; on
Commonwealth membership, 433-
4; on application of sanctions to
Italy, 435; I.R.A. extremists on,
442; (1936) on non-intervention in
Spain, 475; query re correspon-
dence with British Government on
new Constitution, 483; (1938) on
transfer of Treaty ports, 579
Cosgrave Party: see Cumann na
nGaedheal, United Ireland Party
Costello, John A., K.C., T.D., Attor-
ney-General, 1926-32: (1929) dele-
gate to Conference on Operation of
Dominion Legislation, 252; (1935)
election to Committee of Privileges
defeated, 554; (1936) speeches on
abdication legislation, 484, 485;
(1937) opinion on legal operation of
new Constitution, 499
Council of Ireland: functions of, and
abrogation by Boundary Agree-
ment, 178-80

Council of State: functions of, 493, 494
Counihan, John J.: (1922) elected to
Senate, 94; (1923-5) revision of
agricultural Bills, 145; (1925 and
1931) re-elected, 155, 278; (1933)
motion re Bill to reduce Senate’s
suspensory power, 352; (1934)
amendment to Revision of Consti-
tuencies Bill, 417; amendments to
Control of Imports Bill, 538
Courts of Justice Bill, 1924: judicial
system recast by, 150, 532-3. See
also Judiciary

Cove (Queenstown): (1924) a Treaty
port, shooting outrage at, 138, 591 ;
(1938) transfer of, 577

640

INDEX

Coventry: (1939) bomb explosion at,
and sccjucl, 592

Craig, Sir James, Prime Minister of
Northern Ireland since 1921 (after-
wards Lord Craigavon): (7979)
name called at first meeting of DSil,
43; (1920) decision to partition six
Ulster counties instead of nine, 23 ;
(1922) signs agreement with Col-
lins, 55; (1925) threatens civil war
over boundary crisis, 178; signs
Boundary Agreement, 178; desire
for periodical meetings between
two Irish Cabinets, 179; (1938) on
result of Northern Ireland general
election, 575-6; on Mr. Dc Valera's
plan to abolish partition, 585;
(1939) and conscription in Northern
Ireland, 587. Pride in being an
Orangeman, 22; claims Northern
Ireland an outpost of Empire, 23;
on a Protestant Parliament and a
Protestant State, 586

Cromwell, Oliver: destruction by
soldiers of, 107; (1933) Senator
Connolly goes back to, 327; Mr.
MaeDermot on harm inflicted on
Ireland by Mr. Dc Valera and, 329;
(1934) Mr. Dc Valera on dictator-
ship of, 377. On dangers of Single
Chamber, 377-8

Cronin, Commandant: (1934) Direc-
tor-General of Blue Shirts, 408;
(1935) Vice-Chairman of United
Ireland Party, 433; (1936) resigna-
tion, 474; (1937) defeated at general
election, 501

Cumann na nGaedheal (Cosgravc
Party): (1923) foundation and
policy, 181; representation at gen-
eral election, 133; effort to elimi-
nate politics from local elections,
142-3, 349; (1925) success at minia-
ture general election, 142; position
at end of year, 181 ; representation
on D&il panel at Senate election,
154; (1927) policy and representa-
tion at June general election, 189,
193; representation at September
general election, 221; agreement
' with Farmers’ Party, 222; (1927-
33) members returned by National
University, 413; (1928) representa-
tion at Senate election, 241 ; strength
in Senate, 267, 268; (1929) party
formed in Senate, 267; (1931)
representation at Senate election,
278; strength in Senate, 302; (1932)
policy and representation at gen-
eral election, 282, 283, 285; Cap-
tain Redmond joins, and Farmers’

Party merges in, 284; intimidation
of, by I.R.A., protection given by
Army Comrades Association, 297;
(1933) policy and representation at
general election, 320-1, 323; free-
dom of speech assured to, by Army
Comrades Association, 321—2;
merged in United Ireland Party, 1 1,

Ddil fiircann: (7979) first public
meeting, absence of Nationalists
and Unionists, declaration of inde-
pendence, 2, 43; Mr. Dc Valera
elected President of, 43; (7927) cha-
racter of representation after May
general elections, 49, 50; (1921-2)
debates and approves Treaty, 50-4;
(1922) Griffith elected President of,
Pope’s telegram to, 54, 55; Mr.
Cosgravc elected President of, 64;
enactment of Constitution by, 83—4.
Life of, 281; method of enumera-
tion, 564; constituencies revised
and numbers reduced, 320, 413-18;
university representation abolished,
412-17

Davis, Thomas: quoted or referred
to, 30, 52, 73,116, 221,384,496

Deadlock, Procedure for removal of:
(by conference) eases in which
operated, 147-8; (by joint sitting,
with joint voting) provision in 1912
Bill, 33; provision in South Africa,
78; urged by Southern Unionists
and not conceded, 78; (by joint
sitting, without joint voting) in-
serted in Constitution, never
operated, and subsequently de-
leted, 87-8, 148

Dedk, Francis: influence on Griffith,
33

Dcasy, Liam: (1923) ‘Deputy Chief of
Staff’ of Irregulars, appeal re sur-
render, 110

Defence Forces Bills: (1923) intro-
duced as a temporary measure and
since renewed periodically, 123-4,
412; (1934) action of Senate in re-
gard to, 358-9,411-12

Dcrrig,j Thomas, T.D., Minister for
Education, 1932-9: (1922-3) an
anti-Treaty leader, 110

Desart, Countess Dowager of: (1922)
nominated to Senate, 90, 91, 95;
(1923) family mansion burnt by Ir-
regulars, 107; furniture salved from
ditto destroyed, 108; (1933) death
of, 355

De Valera, fiamon, T.D., President of
Dfiil, 1919-22, President of Execu-

INDEX 641

tive Council, 1932-7, Minister for
External Affairs since 1932, Prime
Minister since 1937: ( 1916) part in
insurrection, 37-8; ( 1917) release
from prison and success at Clare
election, 39; threat to coerce Ul-
ster, 39, 177; elected President of
Sinn Fdin and of Irish Volunteers,
not a member of Irish Republican
Brotherhood, 39-40; ( 1918 ) intern-
ment and escape of, departure for
United States, 42-3; (1921) abor-
tive conference to end Anglo-Irish
War, invitation to fresh conference
accepted, resulting in Treaty, 45-6;
pronounces against Treaty, 50;
attitude in D&il debate on Treaty,
propounds ‘Document No. 2’, his
alternative oath, 51; (1922) with-
draws ‘Document No. 2’ and cham-
pions Republic, method of ascer-
taining what the Irish people want,
51-4; resigns Presidency of Ddil,
nominated as ‘President of the Re-
public’ and defeated, 53-4; begins
anti-Treaty agitation as ‘President
of the Republic’, 56; obtains post-
ponement of general election, founds
‘League of the Republic’, 56; ‘wad-
ing through blood’ speeches, 4-5,
57, 192, 263; his explanation of
them, 4-5, 58; Griffith on speeches
of, 58; ‘the people have never a
right to do wrong’, 57; repudiates
Provisional Government, 58-9; ‘the
majority have no right to do wrong’,
59; speech subsequent to pro-
nouncement by Hierarchy, 60; re-
fusal of offers by Provisional Gov-
ernment, 61; on the right of a
minority to use arms against a
majority, 61; agreement for pact
election, 61 ; maintains general elec-
tion not free, 63; Collins’s appeal
to, on Griffith’s death, 64; ap-
pointed ‘President of the Republic’,
4, 66; relations with I.R.A. ‘Army
Council’, 99-100; Christmas mes-
sage, 101-2; (1923) resurrects
‘Document No. 2’, 52; Cardinal
Logue on policy of, 109; Civil War
a continuance of former war, 110;
issue of Cease Fire Order, 102, 1 1 1 ;
interviews with Senators Jameson
and Douglas, peace proposals, 1 12-
14; proclamation to Irregulars, 1 14;
decision not to renew Civil War,

<■ 129; views on ownership of land,
131; activities in general election
campaign, elected for Clare and
arrested, 132; (1924) release of, 140; '

(1925) on Republican attitude to
Ddil, 186; O’Higgins on policy of,
142; attitude before and after boun-
dary settlement, 180-1; views of
Senator MacLoughlin on partition
and, 199; I.R.A. withdraws alle-
giance from ‘Government’ of, 7,
185; (1926) proposal to Sinn F6in
to enter Dail if oath removed, pre-
vious attitude to DSil, 185-6; pro-
posal rejected, resigns from Sinn
F6in, founds Fianna F4il, 186-7;
(1927) mission to United States,
190; campaign against Oath, reply
to Dean of Cashel, 192; legal opin-
ion on Oath, demand for entry to
DS.il and speech on refusal, 193-4;
effect of Electoral Amendment Bill
on policy of, 216; subscribes Oath,
explains circumstances, 8, 217-18;
and ‘no confidence’ motion in DSil,
219-20; tactics before September
election, 221 ; political inexperience,
223 ; (1928) attempted use of Initia-
tive to abolish Oath, 228; attitude
to Senate, activities on Joint Com-
mittee on Senate’s powers, 232-4;
(1929) views on legitimacy of State,
8, 224-6, 257, 439 ; attitude to I.R.A.,
258; on extension of period for
constitutional amendments, 273;
(1930) visits United States, fore-
casts overthrow of Constitution,
477; (1931) takes part in joint
Fianna FSil — Republican pilgrim-
age to Wolfe Tone’s grave, 260;
opposition to Military Tribunal
Bill, attitude to I.R.A., 262-3;
misquotes Lord Birkenhead, 263-4;
(1932) on O’Higgins’s ‘Coercion
Acts’, 141 ; controversy with British
Government, 286-7; reply to cable-
grams from Dominions Prime
Ministers, 288; discussions with
British Ministers, statement of ulti-
mate aims, 288-9; Commonwealth
tribunal refused, 289; further con-
ference in London, claims and
general attitude, 289-90; dispute
with Governor-General, 10, 292-4;
resents activities of Army Com-
rades Association, 297 ; first visit to
Senate, policy outlined, 303; claim
that Oath not obligatory, 306-8;
argument for removal of Oath
based on Statute of Westminster,
308-9; arguments in D&il on Oath
Bill, 308-10; arguments in Senate,
313; (1933) policy at general elec-
tion, 320; on effect of removal of
Oath on I.R.A., 325; query to Brit-

642

INDEX

De Valera, £amon — continued
ish Government re consequences of
secession, 326; reply to Lord Hail-
sham re Privy Council appeals, 327 ;
British market ‘gone for ever’, 327;
defends dismissal of General
O’Duffy, 329-30; denounces Na-
tional Guard, 331; on ‘national
objective’ of I.R.A., 1 1, 331 ; virtual
dictatorship of, admiration for Fas-
cism, scmi-rcgal honours accorded
to, on arrival at Dunleary, 332;
‘gall and wormwood’ speech, 332-
3; attitude to Military Tribunals, 9,
334; Government ‘cannot make
people or causes popular’, 336;
pleads with extremists in Tralee,
340; proposal to reduce Senate’s
suspensory power, 351; use of
Draft Constitutions, 353-4; (1934)
Ddil speech on Wearing of Uni-
form Bill, accuses Opposition of
using Courts to hamper Executive,
343-4; Senate speech, Blue Shirts
accused of advancing ‘under shel-
ter of law’, 361-2; speeches on
Senate AbolitionBill, 367-80,386-9;
on general revision of Constitution,
364—5; on method of enacting a
new Constitution, 365, 497; on best
safeguard for judiciary, 367; on
status of South Africa, 379 ; explains
error re Draft Constitutions, 389;
use of Grey, Adams, and Franklin
as authorities, 390-402; on the duty
of public representatives, 398;
(1935) reply to questions on I.R.A.
after Edgeworthstown murder, 436-
8; physical danger to, from I.R.A.,
440-1 ; in charge of citizenship
Bills, on status of British subject,
448-54; speech at Geneva on sanc-
tions, 434; speech in Senate on
League of Nations, 455 ; on possi-
bility of new Constitution, 458; ac-
cuses Senate Chairman of partisan-
ship, 553; view on demand for
Committee of Privileges, 554-5;
(1936) D&il speech on Senate Abo-
lition Bill, absence from Senate,
456-60; final speech on Senate
Abolition Bill, new Constitution
promised, 467-9; on foreign policy,
476-7; intimation to British Gov-
ernment re disappearance of King
from new Constitution, 483-4; is
not certain that association of other
members of Commonwealth is
free, 486; (1937) attitude to Corona-
tion and Imperial Conference, 488-
9; on Governor-General’s surren-

der of salary, 490; gives reason for
abolishing Senate, 13, 491; on new
Constitution and sovereignty of
people, 499; reasons for procedure
adopted, 500; (1938) nominations
to Senate, 572; new President suc-
cessor of ‘rightful princes’, 574; re-
plies to Lord Craigavon on parti-
tion, 576; part in Anglo-Irish nego-
tiations, 574-9; on Treaty ports,
579-80; blames proportional repre-
sentation for political instability,
581 ; President of League Assembly
during Munich crisis, telegram to
Mr. Chamberlain, 583-4; (1938-9)
anti-partition campaign, 24-5, 584-
5; (1939) and conscription in
Northern Ireland, 586-7 ; and con-
scription of Irish citizens in Great
Britain, 587-8; on possible repeal
of ‘external association’ Act, 14,
486; on I.R.A. campaign against
England, 591 ; policy of neutrality
in European War, 592-3; (1940)
intercedes for men convicted of
Coventry bombing, 592. Irish lang-
uage policy, 17, 19

Dillon, James M., T.D.: (1932) and
formation of National Centre Party,
11, 298-9; (1933) on protection af-
forded by Army Comrades Asso-
ciation, 322; Vice-Chairman of
United Ireland Party, 335, 433, 474;
(1934) on Wearing of Uniform Bill,
343; on attack by Minister for De-
fence on Senate, 359; (1935) on
Mr. De Valera’s reference to
Adams, 396; on physical danger to
Ministers from I.R.A., 440-1;
(1936) speaks on enactment mo-
tion, Senate Abolition Bill, 468;
(1937) on Government’s attitude to
Imperial Conference, 489; on Com-
monwealth amendment to Draft
Constitution, 497

Dillon, John, M.P.: (1918) Chairman
of Nationalist Party, opposition to
conscription, 41-2

Diplomatic Representation: appoint-
ments made by Cosgrave Govern-
ment, 188, 251

District Court: (1924) established un-
der Courts of Justice Act, 150, 532-
3. Senate controversy with D£il re
salaries of Justices of, 150-1 ; Senate
amendment re Irish-speaking areas,

1 45 ; Rules of, 53 4-6

Divorce: pre-Treaty position, 161-2;
(1925) controversy between Senate
and Ddil, 162-71; (1937) position
under new Constitution, 170, 496

INDEX

643

Dixon, Captain Herbert, Parliamen-
tary Secretary of the Ministry of
Finance (Northern Ireland) since
1921 (afterwards Lord Glentoran):
on the Church of Rome, 22
‘Document No, 2\ 51-2, 53. See also
‘External Association’

Dominion Legislation, Conference on
Operation of, 1929: reference to,
224; Report of, opposed by Fianna
Fill and approved by Ddil, 252
Donoughmore, Lord: (1922) takes
• part in formal negotiations of
Southern Unionists with Provi-
sional Government, 76, 78; dis-
satisfaction with character of Sen-
ate, 80-1

Douglas, James G. : (1922) member of
Constitution Committee, 69 ; elected
to Senate, 94; elected Vice-Chair-
man, 117; (1923) intermediary re
Mr. De Valera’s peace proposals,
112-14; initiates Government Bills
in Senate, 520; amendments to
Public Safety Bill, 127-9; re-elected
Vice-Chairman, 144; (1924) motion
for Joint Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs, 122-3; Chairman
of Private Bill Joint Committee,
164; (1925) position in divorce con-
troversy, 166-71; defeated in con-
test for Vice-Chair, 197; on re-
sponsibility for continuance of par-
tition, 198; (1927) supports minis-
terial representation in Senate, 205-
8; (1928) on Senate electoral
change, 238; tribute to Lord Glen-
avy on retirement, 244; member of
Independent Group, 266; defeated
in contest for Chair, 268; (1929-30)
speeches on external affairs, 277;
(1931) re-elected to Senate, 278;
(1932) opposes Removal of Oath
Bill, 312, 313; on forms common to
Commonwealth States, 313; (1933)
speech on Bill to reduce Senate’s
suspensory power, 352, 371 ; refutes
Mr. De Valera’s statements re Draft
Constitutions, 353-4, 388; raises
question of privilege re news broad-
cast, 354; (1934) speech on Wearing
of Uniform Bill, 361; speech on
Senate Abolition Bill, 385-6; spon-
sors Bill to restore referendum for
constitutional amendments, 410,
522; amendment to Revision of
Constituencies Bill, 417; amend-
ments to Control of Imports Bill,
538; debates on quota orders, 539;
(1935) motion to postpone opera-
tion of Senate Abolition Bill, 458;

on personnel of Committee of'
Privileges, 555; elected to Commit-
tee of Privileges, 555-6; (1932-6)
part taken by, in debates on Money
Bills, 551; (1936) speaks to motion
for disposal of Casket at final meet-
ing, 465; (1938) elected to Senate,
572

Dowdall, James C. : (1922) nominated
to Senate, 90, 91; (1925) on re-
sponsibility for continuance of par-
tition, 198-9; (1928) opposes aboli-
tion of referendum, 237; an Inde-
pendent, relations with Fianna F4il,
268; (1931) opposes Military Tribu-
nal Bill, 275-6; (1934) retains seat
at triennial election, 428; (1935)
sponsors Nurses’ Pensions Bill, 523 ;
(1936) speech on Senate Abolition
Bill, 461 ; speaks to motion for dis-
posal of Casket at final meeting, 465

Dublin University: parliamentary re-
presentation after general election
(December 1910), 32; ditto (1918),
43 ; ditto (1921), 45, 49; ditto (1922),
62; non-recognition of Ddil by
members for, prior to Treaty, 49;
members for, attend formal meet-
ing ratifying Treaty, 55; attitude of
members for, to transfer of repre-
sentation from Senate to Ddil, 84-
5; character of representation in
Dail, 182, 412, 413; representation
in Senate (1938), 570, 572. See also
University Representation

Duffy, Michael: (1922) elected to
Senate, 94, 95; (1931) re-elected,
278; (1936) votes against motion re
Senate Abolition Bill, 461

Duggan, Edmund J., T.D., Minister
without Portfolio, 1922, Parliamen-
tary Secretary to Executive Coun-
cil, 1924-6, Parliamentary Secre-
tary to Minister for Finance, 1926-
7, Parliamentary Secretary to Presi-
dent of Executive Council and to
Minister for Defence, 1927-32:
(1921) a signatory of the Treaty, 46;
(1922) administers parliamentary
Oath in Senate, 116, 564; (1932) on
I.R.A. intimidation, 297; (1933)
elected to Senate, 355; (1934) re-
elected, 428

Dundalk bomb outrage, 1934: 341-2

Easter Week Insurrection, 1916:
planned by Irish Republican Bro-
therhood, 36; Irish Volunteers and,
36; Proclamation of an Irish Re-
public, 36-7; progress of, execution
of leaders and aftermath, 1-2, 36-8

644

INDEX

Economic War, 1932-8: origin of,
10, 289; course of, 290, 327, 539;
I.R.A. participate in, 10, 297-8 ; end
of, and estimated cost, 578
Edgeworthstown murder, 1935: 436-
7 ; trials in connection with, 438
Edward VIII, King: {1936) messages
from, conveyed to both Houses,
436. Abdication of, see Abdication
Egan, John: murder of (1936), 443;
man convicted of murder of, by
Military Tribunal, reprieved and
subsequently released, 444
Esmondc, Sir Thomas, Bart.: {1922)
nominated to Senate, 90, 91; <?n
Lord Glenavy’s election to Chair,
117; {1923) mansion destroyed by
Irregulars, 107; an Independent,
268 ; {1934) loses scat, 429
Eucharistic Congress, 1932: reason
for early general election, 281-2;
Government’s attitude to Gover-
nor-General during, 292-3 ; Mr. De
Valera acts as ceremonial head of
State at, 332

‘External Association’: {1923) Cardi-
nal Logue on, 109; {1932) Mr. De
Valera informs British Govern-
ment that ultimate aim is, 288;
{1936) put into force by statute at
time of abdication, 485-6; {1937)
not an issue at plebiscite, 14, 486-7 ;
provision in new Constitution, 494;
not recognized by other States of
Commonwealth, 570. Criticism of,
25, 26, 588. See also ‘Document
No. 2’

Extern Ministers: constitutional pro-
visions for, 88-9; appointment of,
120; and parliamentary Oath, 305,
306; after 1927, no appointments'
made, 184; Bill to enable system to
be discontinued, 203-4

Fahy, Frank, T.D., Chairman of Ddil
since 1932: {1934) and non-admis-
sion of Blue Shirts to Senate
Strangers’ Gallery, 355, 356; {1935)
Committee of Privileges set up re
certification of Land Purchase Bill
by, 552; {1936) summons special
meeting of Ddil to consider Senate’s
recommendations, 557-8. See also
Chairman of D3.il

Farmers’ Party: {1922) representation
at general election. 62; {1923) ditto,
133; {1925) representation on D3il
panel at Senate election, 154; posi-
tion at end of year, 182; {1926)
abortive proposal for fusion with
National League, 191 ; {1927) ditto

with Cosgrave Party, resignation of
leaders, 191 ; policy and representa-
tion at June general election, 190,
193; representation at September
general election, 221; agreement
with Cosgrave Party, 222; {1932)
virtual merger with Cosgrave Party,
284; representation at general elec-
tion, 285

Farren, Thomas: {1922) elected to
Senate, 94, 95; {1925) member of
Private Bill Joint Committee at
time of divorce controversy, 164;
opposes Boundary Agreement, 198;
{1927) carries Liquor Bill amend-
ment against Government, 210;
{1931) re-elected, 278; {1936) votes
for motion re Senate Abolition
Bill, 461

Feetham, Hon. Mr. Justice, of the
Supreme Court of South Africa:
Chairman of Boundary Commis-
sion, 176

Fenians: and 1867 insurrection, 32

Fianna Fdil: {1926) foundation of,
187; {1927-33) members returned
by National University, 413-14;
{1927) policy at June general elec-
tion, 189; relations with Clann
Eireann, 190; decline I.R.A. pro-
posals for conference, 191; repre-
sentation at June general election,
193; demand entry to D3il without
taking Oath, 194; abstentionist
policy of, countered by Electoral
Amendment Bill, 215; members of,
subscribe Oath and enter Ddil, 216—
19; join with Labour Party to de-
mand referendum on Electoral
Amendment Bill, 219; and ‘no con-
fidence’ motion in D&il, 219-20;
representation at September gen-
eral election; 221 ; oppose election
of Mr. Cosgrave as President, 222;
political inexperience of, 223;
{1928-36) inadequacy of Senate
members in revision of Bills, 276-7,
317, 347; general attitude of Senate
members, 516; {1928) attitude to
State after entering Ddil, 224; atti-
tude to apprehension of murderers
of Kevin O’Higgins, 227-8; organ-
ize petition to abolish Oath, 228;
attitude to Senate, 232-4; repre-
sentation at Senate election, 241;
strength in Senate, 267-8; candi-
date for Senate Vice-Chair de-
feated, 268-9; {1929) oppose mo-
tion approving Report of Confer-
ence on Operation of Dominion
Legislation, 9, 252; oppose motion

INDEX

645

approving Briand-Kellogg Pact,
250; attitude to majority rule and
legitimacy of State, 8, 256-8; op-
pose Juries Protection Bill, 258,
273; oppose ministerial representa-
tion in Senate, 269-71; {1930) op-
pose motion approving Report of
Imperial Conference, 9, 252-3;
{1931) weekly organ of, condemns
murder of Superintendent Curtin,
259; join Republicans in pilgrimage
to Wolfe Tone’s grave, 260; oppose
Military Tribunal Bill, 262, 275-6;
representation at Senate election,
278; strength in Senate, 302; {1932)
policy at general election, 282, 306;
allegations regarding ex-Unionists,
284; support of extremists for, 284;
representation at general election,
285; with I.R.A. at Wolfe Tone’s
grave, 296; {1933) policy and re-
presentation at general election,
320, 321, 323; {1934) Senate mem-
bers leave Chamber as protest
against motion re Cork shooting,
419; representation at Senate elec-
tion, 428; strength in Senate, 447;
voting in contest for Senate Chair,
448; {1935) Senate members chal-
lenge ruling of Chair (Land Pur-
chase Bill), 553-4 : party manoeuvres
in relation to Bill, 556-8 ; {1937) re-
presentation at general election,
501, 502; {1938) ditto, 582. Attitude
to politics in local elections, 142-3,
349; tendency to disclose Govern-
ment proposals to party meeting,
386, 562

Figgis, Darrell, T.D.: {1922) acting
chairman of Constitution Com-
mittee, 69; gives Collins’s opinion
on effect of Civil War on Constitu-
tion negotiations, 73; on period for
consideration of Money Bills, 85;
criticism of Senate electoral
scheme, 152; {1924) on attempt to
restrict Senate’s power over dele-
gated legislation, 542

Financial Agreement, 1923: Land
Annuities paid pursuant to, 286

Fine Gael: alternative title for United
Ireland Party, 474

Finlay, Thomas A., K.C., T.D.:
opposes Removal of Oath Bill,
310

Fisher, J. R.: member of Boundary
Commission, 176

Fitzgerald, Desmond, T.D., Minister
for External Affairs, 1922-7, Minis-
ter for Defence, 1927-32: ( 1926)
delegate to Imperial Conference,

188; puts forward Irish Free State
as candidate for League Council,
188; {1928) attempt to elicit attitude
of Fianna Fail to apprehension of
murderers of Kevin O’Higgins, 227 ;

• {1929) called ‘so-called Minister for
Defence’ by deputy leader of Fianna
Fail, 8, 224; {1939) on transfer of
Treaty ports, 579; on I.R.A. cam-
paign against England, 590-1
Fitzgerald, Martin: {1922) nominated
to Senate, 90, 91 ; I.R.A. threat to
murder, 102

Fitzgerald-Kenney, James, K.C., T.D.,
Parliamentary Secretary to Minis-
ter for Justice, 1927, Minister for
Justice, 1927-32: {1928) on dele-
gated legislation, 529; (1929) and
Senate amendment to Game Pre-
servation Bill, 148, 149; {1930) and
Circuit Court Rules, 537; {1936)
speaks on abdication legislation,
484

Fitzgibbon, Gerald, K.C., T.D.
(afterwards Hon. Mr. Justice Fitz-
gibbon), Judge of Supreme Court,
1924-38: {1922) on university re-
presentation, 84-5; on execution of
Irregular leaders, 101 ; {1934) judge-
ment on validity of Military Tribu-
nals, 311

Flinn, Hugo, T.D., Parliamentary
Secretary to Minister for Finance
since 1932: {1929) attack on Senate,
270-1; ( 1934) allusion to Free-
masonry, 415; {1935) on approach-
ing abolition of Senate, 555
Foran, Thomas: {1923) elected to
Senate, 598; {1925) re-elected, 155;
sequel to attitude in divorce debate,
171 ; {1936) votes against motion re
Senate Abolition BUI, 461
Forbes, Rt. Hon. George W., Prime
Minister of New Zealand, 1930-5:
(1932) cablegram to Mr. De Valera
re dispute with British Govern-
ment, 288

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir George: (1928)
asserts Canada’s right to represen-
tation on League Council, 188
Four Courts: (1922) seizure and de-
struction by Irregulars, 59, 63
France: ministerial representation in
Senate of, 207; Mr. De Valera at-
tacks Senate of, 375, 376-7; Sena-
tor Douglas on Senate of, 385-6;
Mr. De Valera on French Revolu-
tion, 387 ; incident at French lega-
tion, 292. See also Barthilemy,
Condorcet, Gambetta, Mirabeau,
Siey&s

646

INDEX

France, C. J. : {1922) member of Con-
stitution Committee, 69
Franklin, Benjamin: Mr. De Valera’s
use of, as an authority, 373, 398-
402

Friends of Soviet Russia : {1931) de-
clared an unlawful association, 265

Gaelic Athletic Association: {1884)
foundation and objects, 33
Gaelic League: {1893) foundation, ob-
jects and influence, 33; {1918) ‘sup-
pression’ of, 42. Dr. Hyde ousted
from presidency of, 1 8-1 9
Gallagher, Frank: {1932) prosecution
before Military Tribunal, 283
Gambetta, Ldon: reference to, 73; on
Second Chambers, 375, 385-6
Gavan Duffy, George, K.C., T.D.
(afterwards Hon. Mr. Justice
Gavan Duffy), Judge of High Court
since 1936: {1921) a signatory of
Treaty, 46; {1922) on effect of Civil
War on post-Treaty negotiations,
73

General elections: December 1910:
fought on issue of Lords’ veto, 32;
number of Irish Nationalists and
Unionists returned at, 32; Decem-
ber 1918: Irish representation at,
43; May 1921 (Northern and
Southern Ireland): results of, 45;
character of representation, 49-50;
June 1922: result and first pre-
ferences, 62; August 1923: result,
133; June 1927: result, 193; Sep-
tember 1927: result, 221 ; February
1932: result, 285; first preferences,
303; January 1933.\ result and first
preferences, 323 ; July 1937: result,
501; first preferences, 502; Feb-
ruary 1938 (Northern Ireland): re-
sult, 575 ; June 1938: result, 582
Geoghegan, James, K.C., T.D. (after-
wards Hon. Mr. Justice Geoghe-
gan), Minister for Justice, 1932-3,
Attorney-General, 1936, Judge of
Supreme Court since 1936: {1932)
takes part in conference on finan-
cial dispute, 289; visit to LILA, pri-
soners on being appointed Minis-
ter, 295 ; defends military words of
command in connection with I.R.A.
processions, 10, 295; speedy release
of I.R.A. prisoner, 296; attitude to
I.R.A. activities in economic war,
298; takes no part in debates on
Removal of Oath Bill, 309; {1934)
on Senate amendment to Defence
Forces Bill, 359; {1936) on vesting
of executive authority after re-

moval of King from Constitution,
484

George' V, King: {1921) speech on
opening of Northern Ireland Par-
liament, 45; {1922) Pope’s telegram
to, re Treaty, 55; {1936) death of,
resolutions of sympathy passed by
both Houses, 436

George VI, King: {1936) referred to
anonymously in post-abdication
legislation, 483, 486. Coronation
of, see Coronation

Georgia: single-chamber experiment
in, 382

‘German Plot’, 1918: mythical charac-
ter of, 42

Gilmartin, Most Rev. Dr., Arch-
bishop of Tuam; {1923) pastoral on
military revolt, 110

Gilmore, George: {1932) visited in
prison by Minister for Defence, and
subsequent release, 295; {1934)
elected to Executive of Republican
Congress Party, 405; {1935) and
Irish Republican dissensions in
U.S.A., 441

Glenavy, Rt. Hon. Lord: {1922)
nominated to Senate, .'90, 92;
elected Chairman, 117; {1922-8)
administers Oath in public in
Senate, 564; {1923) attitude to
rushing of legislation, 122; chair-
man of Judiciary Committee, 532-
3; creates precedent by speaking
from floor of House, 380; re-elected
Chairman of the Senate, 144; {1924)
vindicates rights of Senate, 147 ; and
money amendments in non-Money
Bills, 151; ridicules proposal to
change traditional legal costume,
533-4; resists attempt to restrict
Senate’s power over delegated
legislation, 541; {1925) ruling in
divorce controversy, 165, 170; con-
duct of subsequent debate, 167,
168; on Ddil Supreme Court (Pen-
sions) Bill, 549; re-elected Chair-
man of the Senate, 197; {1926) ac-
quiescence in hasty legislation, 198-
201; on initiation of Government
Bills in Senate, 201; gives casting
vote against Senate motion on Ul-
timate Financial Settlement, 203;
rejects Attorney-General’s view re
form of approval of Rules of
Court, 535; {1927) on ministerial
representation in Senate, 206; tri-
bute to Kevin O’Higgins, 211;
{1928) chairman of Joint Commit-
tee on Circuit Court Rules, 536; re-
tirement and appreciation, 243-5

INDEX

647

Gogarty, Oliver St. J., M.D.: ( 1922 )
nominated to Senate, 90; {1923)
kidnapping by Irregulars and es-
cape of, 103-4; house burnt by Ir-
regulars, 107; (7925) comment on
Senate election, 154; (.1928) retains
seat at triennial election, 241 ;
(1934) re-elected, 428 ; (1936) speaks
to motion for disposal of Casket at
final meeting, 465

Good, John, T.D.: (1937) supports
•Commonwealth amendment to
Draft Constitution, 496
Gorey, Denis J., T.D.: (1925) leader
of Farmers’ Party, 182; (1927) pro-
posal of, for fusion with Cosgrave
Party rejected, resignation of, 191
Government of Ireland Act, 1920: the
partitioning of Ireland, 2-3, 44;
reason for partitioning six Ulster
counties instead of nine, 23; provi-
sion for Senates, 44-5 ; a dead letter
except in north-east Ulster, 45.
See also Council of Ireland, Parti-
tion

Government of Ireland Bill, 1912: re-
jected by House of Lords, 32; re-
stricted powers of proposed Parlia-
ment under, 32; provisions for
Senate, 32-3; general support for,
33 ; hostility of Ulster Unionists to,
34; receives Royal Assent but
operation suspended, 35
Governor-General: salary under Con-
stitution, 490; signs English copy of
Bills, 565; (1922-3) attends Parlia-
ment, 561; (1933) alterations in
constitutional powers of, 13, 325-6;
(1936) abolition of, 482-4; (1937)
remaining powers and functions
distributed, 489. See also Buckley,
Healy, McNeill

Granard, Lord: (1922) nominated to
Senate, 90, 91; an Independent,
268; (1923) Irish seat mined by Ir-
regulars, 107; (1934) reference by
Minister for Industry to, 379; re-
tirement of, 428

Green, Alice Stopford: (1922) elected
to Senate, 94; member of Indepen-
dent Group, 266; (1923) Irish lang-
uage projects, 118—19; speech on
Public Safety Bill, 128-9; (1924)
presentation of Casket to Senate
and accompanying message, 157-
60; (1929) death of, 159; (1934) re-
ference to, by Chairman of Senate,
384; (1936) reference to, by Senator
Brown at final meeting, 464-5
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar,
Chief Secretary for Ireland, 1920-2

(afterwards Lord Greenwood):
(1931) Mr. De Valera compares
policy of Mr. Cosgrave to that of,
262; (1935) I.R.A. extremists com-
pare policy of Mr. De Valera to
that of, 442

Grey, Third Earl: Mr. De Valera’s
use of, as authority for abolition of
Senate, 373, 391-4

Griffith, Arthur, T.D., President of
Ddil, 1922: character and policy,
33-4; work for revival of Irish lang-
uage, 74; friendship with Figgis, 69;
(1905) foundation of Sinn Fein, 34;
(19161) attitude to insurrection and
imprisonment of, 38; (1917) retires
from Presidency of Sinn Fdin in
favour of Mr. De Valera, 39 ; (1918)
imprisonment of, 42; elected Sinn
F6in M.P., 42; (1921) a signatory of
Treaty, 46; not a protagonist of
Treaty except in a secondary sense,
48 ; repudiates charge of exceeding
instructions, 51; and ‘Document
No. 2’, 51, 52; moves motion of ap-
proval of Treaty, 52-3; Mr. Lloyd
George’s letter to, >re Canadian
analogy, 70; (1922) objects to vote
on Mr. De Valera’s personality, 54;
agrees to postpone general election,
56; resists further concessions to
Mr. De Valera, 56; on Mr. De
Valera’s ‘wading through blood’
speeches, 58; efforts at compromise
with anti-Treaty Party, 60-1; re-
sistance to intrigue and force, 61 ;
disapproval of Collins-De Valera
Pact, 61 ; denial that attack on Four
Courts was pursuant to British or-
ders, 63; negotiations with British
Government over Constitution, 72;
outlook on minority problem, 73-4,
76-7; interviews with Southern
Unionists, 75, 76; on safeguards for
minority in north-east Ulster, 75;
formal negotiations and agreement
with Southern Unionists, 76-80;
undertaking to adopt proportional
representation for elections to
Ddil, 76, 414; death of, 64; (1932)
ceremony at memorial to, discon-
tinued after change of Govern-
ment, 333; (1934) Senator Jameson
on promises made by, 416

Griffith, Sir John: (1922) elected to
Senate, 94; member of Independent
Group, 274; (1925) member of
Joint Committee on Patents and
Copyright Bill, 521; (1929) votes
against Government on Juries Bill,
274; (1931) re-elected, 278; (1936)

648

INDEX

Griffith, Sir John — continued
on effect of abolition of Senate on
partition, 461

Guinness, Henry Seymour: {1922)
nominated to Senate, 90, 91 ; (1923)
house partially destroyed by Irregu-
lars, 107-8; amendment to Land
Bill, 125; (1924) on attempt to re-
strict Senate’s power over delegated
legislation, 542; ( 1934) retirement
of, 428

Habeas Corpus: (1923) applications
for writ of, refused by Master of
Rolls, 126; applications granted by
Court of Appeal, 129; (1924) sus-
pension of, under Public Safety
Act, 140; (1933) absolute order
granted by High Court in O’Duffy’s
case, 339

Hailsham, Lord, Secretary of State
for War, 1931-5: (1932) takes part
in discussions on Oath and Land
Annuities disputes, 288, 289; (1933)
on abolition of right of appeal to
Privy Council, 326-7
Hales, Scdn, ‘T.D.: (1922) assassina-
tion of, 100

Hanna, Hon. Mr. Justice, Judge of
High Court since 1925: (1937)
judgement in case arising out of
Cork shooting affray, 420-7
Harty, Most Rev. Dr., Archbishop of
Cashel: (1923) pastoral on military
revolt, 109-10; (1931) insulted by
Republican journal, 259
Hayes, Michael, T.D., Chairman of
DAil, 1922-32: member for Na-
tional University, 413; (1922) ad-
ministers Oath in public in Ddil,
563; (1924) on Senate amendment
to Local Government Bill, 147;
(1926) ruling on District Court
Rules, 535; (1927) gives casting
vote against ‘no confidence’ mo-
tion, 220; (1930) on Senate amend-
ment to Game Preservation Bill,
148-9; (1938) elected to Senate,
572. See also Chairman of Ddil.
Healy, Timothy M., K.C., Governor-
General, 1922-8: Pope’s telegram
to, on appointment, 67 ; (1922-3) at-
tends Parliament, 561
Heffernan, Michael R., T.D., Parlia-
mentary Secretary to Minister for
Posts and Telegraphs, 1927-32:
(1927) leader of Farmers’ Party,
joins Administration, 222
Hertzog, General Hon. J. B. M.,

' Prime Minister of South Africa,
1924-39: (1932) cablegram to Mr.

Dc Valera re dispute with British
Government, 288; (1934) Chairman
of Senate contrasts attitude of, to
Senate with that of Mr. De Valera,
382-3; (1936) on position created
by King’s abdication, 480. Attitude
to Simonstown Agreement, 580

Hewart, Lord, Lord Chief Justice of
England since 1922: reference to
his New Despotism , 526

Hickic, Major-General Sir William B. :
(1925) elected to Senate, 155, 156;
an Independent, 268; (1934) speech
on Wearing of Uniform Bill, 361 ;
votes against Senate Abolition Bill,
389; presides at election to Chair
and gives casting vote in favour of
outgoing Chairman, 447-8

High Court: ( 1924) established under
Courts of Justice Act, 150, 532-3.
Rules of, 534-5; decisions of (Blue
Shirt cases),' 338-9; attempt to oust
jurisdiction of, in Wearing of Uni-
form Bill, 343, 361. See also Ju-
diciary

Hills, Major John W., Financial Sec-
retary to the Treasury, 1922-3:
(1923) signs Financial Agreement,
286

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir Samuel, Secre-
tary of State for Home Affairs,
1937-9: (1938) a signatory of Lon-
don Agreements, 577; (1939) on
I.R.A. ultimatum to British Gov-
ernment, 590

Hogan, Professor James: (1934) re-
signs from Executive of United Ire-
land Party as protest against
General O’Duffy’s leadership, 407-8

Hogan, Patrick, T.D., Minister for
Agriculture, 1922-4 and 1928-32,
Minister for Lands and Agricul-
ture, 1924-8: (1922-7) an Extern
Minister, 89; (1923) his Land Bill,
124, 131; on Senate’s revision of
Land Bill, 125; (1924-5) measures
for improvement of agriculture,
135-6, 145; views on free trade,
183; (1928) his Forestry Bill, 243;
(1932) oh Mr. De Valera’s disputes
with Great Britain, 291; query re
Mr. De Valera’s attitude to validity
of Treaty, 307 ; (1934) on Mr. De
Valera’s controversial method in
debate, 327; (1936) death of, and
appreciation, 473

Hooper, Patrick J.: ( 1927) elected to
Senate, 599; an Independent, 268;
(1928) and parliamentary control
over delegated legislation, 529; re-,
elected, 241, 242; (1929) votes

INDEX

649

against Government on Juries Bill,
274; chairman of Joint Committee
on ministerial salaries, etc., 510;
(1931) elected Vice-Chairman, 269;
death of, 269

Horgan, John J.: reference to his
Complete Grammar of Anarchy , 35;
(1925) unsuccessful candidate for
Senate panel at triennial election,
154; (1926) chairman of Intoxicat-
ing Liquor Commission, 189
House of Lords: (1911) abolition of
veto, 32; (1913) rejects Govern-
ment of Ireland Bill, 32; (1929) Mr.
Hugo Flinn on, 270-1 ; (1934) Mr.
De Valera on, 375
Howth: (1914) gun-running at, 34-5
Hungary: influence of Deck’s policy
on Griffith, 33

Hyde, Dr. Douglas, President of Ire-
land since 1938: one of founders of
Gaelic League, 33; ousted from
presidency of Gaelic League, 18-
19; (1925) elected to Senate, 155;
Joses seat, 155; (1938) nominated to
Senate, 572; unopposed election as
President under new Constitution,
general appreciation, 573-4; re-
lease of condemned prisoner on that
occasion, 444

Imperial Conferences: (1926) Irish
Free State participation in, 6, 188;
references to, 252, 485 ; (1930) Irish
Free State participation in, and re-
sults of, 9, 252; reference to, 224;
motion approving Report of, op-
posed by Fianna Fdil and passed by
both Houses, 252-3, 277; (1937) de-
cision not to be represented at, 489
Imperial Economic Conference, 1932:

see Ottawa Conference
Independent Group (Senate); charac-
ter of, 266; (1928) members re-
turned at election, 242; total
strength, 267, 268; (1931) members
returned at election, 278; total
strength, 302; (1932) political out-
look of, 302; attitude to Bill to
prosecute economic war, 317;
(1934) supports amendment to De-
fence Forces Bill, 359; opposes
Wearing of Uniform Bill, 360-2;
defence of, by Chairman, 384;
votes against Senate Abolition Bill,
389; amendment to Revision of
Constituencies Bill, 417; members
returned at election, 428; total
strength, 447 ; voting in contest for
Chair, 448

Independents (Ddil): (1922) represen-

tation at general election, 62; (1923)
ditto, 133; (1925) position at end of
year, 182; (1927) representation at
June general election, 193; ditto,
September, 221; (1931) support
Military Tribunal Bill, 262; (1932)
representation at general election,
285; (1933) ditto, 323; (1934) effect
on, of Revision of Constituencies
Bill, 414-15, 417-18, 501; (1935)
join in demanding Committee of
Privileges on Land Purchase Bill,
554; (1937) representation at gen-
eral election, 501-2; (1938) ditto,
582

Independents (Senate): (1925) candi-
dates on Ddil panel, 154; (1928)
members returned at election, 242;
total strength, 268; (1931) members
returned at election, 278; total
strength, 302; (1934) voting on
Wearing of Uniform Bill, 360-2;
voting on Senate Abolition Bill,
389; member returned at election,
428; total strength, 447; voting in
contest for Chair, 448

India: (1935) position under Aliens
Act, 454

Initiative: (1922) proposed by Drafts
of Constitution Committee, 71;
(1928) attempted use of, to abolish
Oath, 228; deleted from Constitu-
tion, 229-30

Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas, K.C.,
Attorney-General, 1932-6, Minis-
ter for the Co-ordination of De-
fence, 1936-9 (afterwards Lord
Caldecote): (1932) takes part in
conference re financial dispute,
289; (1938) a signatory of London
Agreements, 577

Insurrection of 1916: see Easter
Week Insurrection

Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1923: con-
stitutional position regarding, 125-
6, 235-6

Irish Association: activities of, 26

Irish Christian Front: (1936) forma-
tion of, in connection with Spanish
Civil War, 474-5

Irish Convention: (1917-18) estab-
lishment of, 38; Southern Unionist
delegates to, 75; Report of, 40;
sabotaged by Ulster Unionists, 2,
40; effect of Mr. De Valera’s
speeches on Ulster Unionist mem-
bers of, 39; character of Senate
proposed by, 40-1, 77; Mr. Lloyd
George’s promise to implement
Report, 41 ; Report sidetracked by
conscription threat, 41

650

INDEX

Irish language: Gaelic League founded
for preservation of, 33; present
position and policy regarding, effect
on partition, 17-20; Dr. Sigerson’s
work for, 106; Dr. Hyde’s work
for, 573; Griffith’s attitude to, 74;
proclaimed national language by
Constitution, knowledge by mem-
bers of Ddil of, no Bill introduced
in, 564-5; failure of scholars of, at
Senate elections (1925 and 1938),
155-6, 572; attitude of Senate to,
118-20, 145; Senate prayer recited
in English and, 565 ; Mr. De
Valera on his knowledge of, 51;
his declaration when subscribing
Oath written in, 218; his announce-
ment of Governor-General’s ap-
proval of his appointment made in,
285; Mr. O’Kelly speaks in, 233;
basic text of new Constitution,
491-2

Irish Nationalist Party: {1910) repre-
sentation at December general elec-
tion, under Redmond’s leadership,
32; {1912) support of people for,
34; {1914) relations with Irish
Volunteers, 35; {1917) by-election
losses, 38, 39; represented on Irish
Convention, 38; {1918) early by-
election successes, 40; opposition
to conscription, 42; ruined by con-
scription threat, failure at general
election, 42, 43; {1919) non-recog-
nition of Ddil, 43, 49; {1920) oppo-
sition to partition, 45 ; {1921) repre-
sentation at Northern Ireland
general election, 45

Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill,
1934: purpose of, 13, 449-53; de-
bate in Senate, amendments made,
450-3 ; distinction between citizens
and nationals, 452-3

Irish Republican Army: {1919) origin
of, 44; {1919-21) activities in Anglo-
Irish War, 44, 45; the debit side, 3;
{1922-3) activities in Civil War, 55-
6, 58, 59, 62, 63-4, 73, 82, 99-115;
condemnations by Hierarchy, 59-
60, 64-6, 109-10; {1924) position
and activities, 137-9; {1925) with-
draws allegiance from ‘Govern-
ment of Republic’, 7, 185, 589;
{1926) attacks on Civic Guard bar-
racks, Mr. Cosgrave’s measures
against, 189; {1927) pre-election
proposals to Sinn F6in and Fianna
Fdil, 190—1 ; {1928-9) activities,
255-6; {1929) Mr. De Valera on
right to continuity of, 225-6, 257;
his sympathetic reference to, 258;

{1931) activities, 258-61; associa-
tion of Fianna Fdil and Mr. De
Valera with, at Wolfe Tone’s grave,
260; leader justifies policy in Lon-
don newspaper interview, 260-1;
Mr. De Valera enjoins respect for,
262; condemnation by Hierarchy,
264-5; declared an unlawful asso-
ciation, 265; {1932) election sup-
port for Fianna Fdil, 284; prisoners
visited by Ministers and released,
295; ‘Chief of Staff’ on policy of,
295 ; ceases to be an unlawful asso-
ciation, 295; activities of, associa-
tion of Fianna Fdil with, and Gov-
ernment attitude towards, 295-8;
wound pensions for ex-members of,
316; {1933-5) statistics of convic-
tions by Military Tribunal, 434;
{1933) intimidation at general elec-
tion, 321-2; recruiting campaign
and activities, 328-9, 335-7; warn-
ings of Hierarchy against, 328; Mr.
De Valera on ‘national objective’
of, 11, 331; members of, sentenced
by Military Tribunal, 339; ex-
members of, armed and recruited
into Civic Guard, 333, 342, 348,
403, 420, 421 ; ex-members of, com-
pensated for property damaged in
Civil War, 348; {1934) activities,
340-3, 406, 436-7; commissions in
Army Volunteer Force given to ex-
members of, 358, 41 1 ; ex-members
of, pensioned on same terms as
Regular Army, 403-4; hostility to
Volunteer Force and Army Pen-
sions Act, 404; dissensions in, 405-
6; {1935) activities, 437-42; Mr.
De Valera refuses to declare un-
lawful association and denies Fi-
anna Fdil approval of, 437-8;
arrest of members of, 440; Mr. De
Valera and Ministers in danger
from, 440-1 ; continued dissensions,
441 ; newspaper suppressed, 441-2;
{1936) activities, 442-4; declared an
unlawful association, ‘Chief of
Staff’ sentenced, 444; {1937) ban on
Coronation film, 489; {1938) bomb-
ing on Northern Ireland border,
438, 588; authority delegated to, by
Republican ‘Ddil’, 589; {1939) ulti-
matum to British Government and
campaign in England, 589-90; de-
clared an unlawful organization,
590; British measures against, 591;
{1940) renewed condemnation by
members of Hierarchy, 592
ish Republican Brotherhood: ana
1867 insurrection, 32; positibn m

INDEX

651

1912, banned by Catholic Church,
34; connection with Irish Volun-
teers, 35; decide on 1916 insurrec-
tion, 36; Mr. De Valera not a
member of, 40

Irish Volunteers: (1913) formed to
uphold Government of Ireland Bill,
34; ( 1914) gun-running at Howth,
34-5 ; control of, obtained by Red-
mond, 35; pledged by him for de-
fence of Ireland on outbreak of
Great War, 35; split in, 35; Irish
Republican Brotherhood and, 35;
(1916) insurrection of, 36-7; execu-
tions and deportations, 37-8;
(1917) release of, Mr. De Valera
elected president, 39, 40; (1918) op-
position to conscription, 42; ‘sup-
pression’ of, 42; (1919) become
Army of Irish Republic, 44

Irregulars: name given to anti-Treaty
forces in Civil War. See Civil
War

Italo-Abyssinian War: see Abyssinia

Jameson, Rt. Hon. Andrew: (1917-
18) member of Irish Convention,
75-6; (1921-2) a representative
Southern Unionist, 75-6; inter-
view with Griffith, 75; interviews
with Griffith and Mr. Lloyd George,
76; takes part in formal negotia-
tions with Provisional Govern-
ment, 76,' 78; dissatisfaction with
character of Senate, 80-1; (1922)
nominated to Senate, 90, 91 ; (1923)
intermediary re Mr. De Valera’s
peace proposals, 112-14; on non-
party character of Senate, 118; on
Defence Forces Bill, 124; amend-
ment to Land Bill, 125; attitude to
Public Safety Bill, 127; (1927) on
ministerial representation in Senate,
207; tribute to Kevin O’Higgins,

' 212; (1928) retains seat at triennial
election, 241, 242; Chairman of In-
dependent Group, 266; motion re
Chairman’s salary, 509; (1934) re-
ference by Minister for Industry to,
379; speech on abolition of univer-
sity representation, 12, 416; re-
elected, 428, 429; (1935) support
for Conversion Loan, 454; (1932-
6) part taken by, in debates on
Money Bills, 551

Jefferson, Thomas: on elective des-
potism of Single Chamber, 378

Jinks, Alderman John, T.D.: (1927)
and ‘no confidence’ motion in
D&il, 220

Johnson, Thomas, T.D.: general ap-

preciation, 6; (1922-7) Leader of
the Opposition, 134, 182; (1923) on
necessity of resistance to Irregulars,
111; (1925) protest at canvassing
for Senate election, 154; speaks in
divorce debate, 169; (1927) moves
‘no confidence’ motion in Ddil, 219;
defeated at September general elec-
tion, 222; (1928) elected to Senate,
241-2, 267; (1928-31) competence
in revision of Bills, 276; (1929-30)
speeches on external affairs, 277;
(1929) raises question of Optional
Clause, 250; initiates Town Plan-
ning Bill, 523; on attempt to re-
strict Senate’s power over delegated
legislation, 542, 543; (1931) op-
poses Military Tribunal Bill, 276;
(1932) supports Removal of Oath
Bill, 312; (1934) resigns from Com-
mittee on Procedure, 357; speech
on Senate Abolition Bill, 386;
amendments to Control of Imports
BUI, 538; re-elected, 428; (1936)
votes for motion re Senate Aboli-
tion Bill, 461. Motions to annul
ministerial regulations, 532; refer-
ence to (payment of members), 518

Johnston, Hon. Mr. Justice, Judge of
High Court, 1924-39, Judge of Su-
preme Court, 1939-40: (1934) re-
fuses Attorney-General’s applica-
tion re League of Youth, 338;
(193S) abortive trial of Edgeworths-
town murder case, 438

Joint Sitting: (1922-3) of both Houses
to hear Address from Governor-
General, 561. For removal of dead-
lock, see Deadlock

Judiciary: system recast by Courts of
Justice Act (1924), 150, 532-3;
power to determine constitutional
validity of laws, 305-6; (1927) atti-
tude of members of, in connection
with Public Safety Act, 261 ; (1932)
attempt to remove Oath Bill from
purview of, 306, 310; (1934) amend-
ments regarding, in Senate Aboli-
tion Bill, 366; Mr. De Valera on the
best safeguard for, 367; (1937) Mr.
De Valera on new Constitution and,
499. See also High Court, Supreme
Court, and names of judges: Black,
Fitzgibbon, Gavan Duffy, Geoghe-
gan, Hanna, Johnston, Kennedy,
Maguire, Meredith, Murnaghan,
O’Byrne, Sullivan

Keane, Sir John, Bart. : (1922) nomi-
nated to Senate, 90; an Indepen-
dent, 268; (1923-5) revision of

652

INDEX

Keane, Sir John, Bart . — continued
agricultural Bills, 145; {1923) house
burnt by Irregulars, 107 ; attitude to
Land Bill, 124-5; {1927) objects to
reading of letters from Ministers,
200; supports ministerial represen-
tation in Senate, 204-5; {1928) op-
poses abolition of referendum, 237 ;
{1929) votes against Government
on Juries Bill, 274; {1932) opposes
Removal of Oath Bill, 312; {1933)
motion re Government’s measures
to preserve order, 333-4; {1934)
speech on Wearing of Uniform
Bill, 361 ; votes against Senate Abo-
lition Bill, 389; loses seat, 429;
{1938) nominated to Senate, 572;
{1939) on I.R.A. campaign against
England, 591. Motions to annul
ministerial regulations, 532

Kennedy, Hugh, K.C., T.D. (after-
wards Hon. Chief Justice Kennedy),
Attorney-General, 1922-4, Chief
Justice, 1924-36: {1922) member of
Constitution Committee, 69 ; nego-
tiations with British Government re
Constitution, 72; drafting of Agree-
ment with Southern Unionists, 78;
{1923) view of Senate’s functions
re Money Bills not accepted by
Senate, 546; {1924) and money
amendments in non-Money Bills,
151; admits Rules of Court to be
delegated legislation, 533; favours
change in traditional legal costume,
533; {1926) view re form of appro-
val of District Court Rules not ac-
cepted by Chairman of Senate, 535 ;
{1934) judgement on validity of
Military Tribunals, 311; {1935)
chairman of Committee of Privi-
leges, gives casting vote, 555-6;
{1936) chairman of Second Cham-
ber Commission, 490-1

Kennedy, Thomas: {1928) defeated
Senate candidate, 240; {1934)

elected to Senate, 428; {1936) votes
against motion re Senate Abolition
Bill, 461

Kenny, Patrick W.: {1922) elected to
Senate, 94; {1927) proposes minis-
terial representation in Senate, 204,
207 ; {1928) elected Vice-Chairman,
268 ; {1931) death of, 268

Labour Party: Dail and general:
{1918) opposition to conscription,
42; {1922) interview Mr. De Valera
in attempt to avert Civil War, 59;
representation at general election,
62 ;' attitude to Constitution Bill,

84; {1 922-3) boycott joint sittings
addressed by Governor-General,
561 ; {1923) representation at general
election, 1 33 ; {1925) position at end
of year, 182; {1926) oppose Public
Safety Bill, 189; {1927) policy and
representation at June general elec-
tion, 190, 193; oppose Mr. Cos-
grave’s election as President of
Executive Council, 195; join with
Fianna F&il to demand referendum
on Electoral Amendment Bill, 219;
and ‘no confidence’ motion, 219;
representation at September general
election, 221; oppose Mr. Cos-
grave’s election as President of
Executive Council, 222; {1927-8)
divisions in, 220-1, 240; {1931) ex-
pel two members for voting for
Military Tribunal Bill, 262; {1932)
policy and representation at general
election, 283, 285; vote for Re-
moval of Oath Bill, 304; {1933)
policy and representation at general
election, 321, 323; {1936) oppose.
Executive Authority (External Re-
lations) Bill, 486; {1937) hostility to
new Draft Constitution, 496; repre-
sentation at general election, 501,
502; {1938) boycott first Senate
election, 571 ; attitude to transfer of
Treaty ports, 579; policy and re-
presentation at general election,
581-2. Senate : {1922-8) character
of representation, 95, 117, 266;
{1925) representation at triennial
election, 155, 156; {1927) opposi-
tion to Public Safety Bill, 215;
{1928) opposition to abolition of
referendum, 237; divisions in, 268;
representation at triennial election,
241; party strength, 267, 268;
{1929) opposition to Juries Protec-
tion Bill, 273; {1931) opposition to
Military Tribunal Bill, 275; repre-
sentation at triennial election, 278;
party strength, 302; {1934) oppose
amendment to Defence Forces Bui,
359; vote for Wearing of Uniform
Bill, 362; voting on Senate Aboli-
tion Bill, 389; support restoration
of referendum for constitutional
amendments, 411; representation
at triennial election, 428; party
strength, 447 ; voting in contest lor
Chair, 448; {1935) oppose recom-
mendations to Land Purchase Bill.
557; {1936) voting on motion re
Senate Abolition Bill, 461. Refer-
ence to (payment of members), 51°
md Annuities: {1932) Fianna' Fail

INDEX . 653

manifesto regarding, 282; legal po-
sition outlined, 286-7; payment of,
withheld, 10, 289; Mr. De Valera
states will never be paid, 290;
(1933) decision to use for exchequer
requirements, 327; (1938) com-
pounded by London Agreement,
578

Land Purchase (Guarantee Fund)
Bill, 1935: Committee of Privileges
set up on, 552-8

Larkin, James, T.D. : (1937) elected to
Ddil, 502

Larne: (1914) gun-running at, 34
Lavery, Cecil, K.C., T.D.: (1936)
speaks on abdication legislation,
points out error in ditto, 484;
(1937) loses seat, 582
League of Nations: (1930) Irish Free
State membership of Council, 188,
251, 282; (1935) Mr. De Valera’s
speech at Assembly (application of
sanctions to Italy), 434; passage of
League of Nations (Obligations of
Membership) Bill, 454-5; (1938)
Mr. De Valera President of As-
sembly, 584

League of Youth: see Blue Shirts
Lemass, Sein, T.D., Minister for In-
dustry and Commerce, 1932-9:
(1922-5) ‘Minister for Defence’ in
‘Government of Republic’, 185;
(1928) describes Fianna Fdil as ‘a
slightly constitutional party’, 8,
224; describes Senate as ‘bulwark
of Imperialism’, 232; views on
powers of Senate, 234; (1929) at-
tack on Senate, 270; (1932) declares
title ofDdil to legislate to be faulty,
295; (1932-6) general attitude in
Senate debates on Money Bills,
551; (1933) plans for industrializa-
tion, 328; cordial relations with
Senate, 347; on delegated legisla-
tion, 530-1; (1934) moves final
stage of Senate Abolition Bill, 369;
on ‘Jamesons and Granards’, 379;
(1934-6) and quota orders in
Senate, 539; (1935) stated to be
heavily guarded, 441 ; (1938) a sig-
natory of London Agreements, 577
Lincoln, Abraham: quoted or re-
ferred to, 140, 141, 174, 196
Linehan, Thomas: (1922) elected to
Senate, 94; (1923) house burnt by
Irregulars, 105; (1925) re-elected,
155; (1928) opposes abolition of
referendum, 237; an Independent,
relations with Fianna F&il, 268;
(1934) votes against Senate Aboli-
tion Bill, 389; votes against out-

going Chairman in contest for
Chair, 448

Little, Patrick J., T.D., Parliamentary
Secretary to President of Executive
Council and to Minister for Exter-
nal Affairs, 1933-7, Parliamentary
Secretary to Prime Minister, 1937-
9 : (1927) view on invitation to nego-
tiations in London, 223; (1928) and
attitude of Fianna Fdil to appre-
hension of murderers of Kevin
O’Higgins, 227-8; (1933) on down-
fall of British Empire, 324; (1936)
moves guillotine motion re abdica-
tion legislation, 482

Lloyd George, Rt. Hon. David, Prime
Minister, 1916-22: (1917) an-
nounces setting up of Irish Con-
vention, 38; (1918) promises to
implement Report of Convention,
41; introduces Conscription Bill,
41 ; achieves ruin of Irish National-
ist Party, 42; (1920) Bill for parti-
tion of Ireland introduced by Gov-
ernment of, 44; (1921) negotiations
to end Anglo-Irish War, 45-6;
Griffith’s letter to, re safeguards,
75 ; threat of ‘immediate and terrible
war’, 63; a signatory of Treaty, 46;
communicates details of Treaty to
Southern Unionists, 76; Griffith’s
promises re Southern Unionists
communicated to, 76; letter to
Griffith on effect of Article 2 of
Treaty (analogy with Canada), 70

Local Government: system recast by
1925 Act, 136; party politics in,
142-3, 349, 350; electoral changes,
349-50

Logue, Cardinal, Archbishop of Ar-
magh, 1888-1924: (1917) on Irish
Convention, 38; (1922) heads pro-
nouncement of Hierarchy on mili-
tary revolt, 59; heads joint pastoral
on ditto, 64; (1923) pastoral on
ditto, criticism of ‘external associa-
tion’, 109

Lynch, Finian, T.D., Minister with-
out Portfolio, 1922, Minister for
Fisheries, 1922-8, Minister for
Lands and Fisheries, 1928-32:
(1922-7) an Extern Minister, 89;
(1933) assaulted by mob in Tralee,
337

Lynch, Liam: (1922-3) ‘Chief of
Staff’ of Irregulars, operational in-
structions, 100; (1923) capture and
death of. 111

Lynch, Patrick, K.C., Attorney-
General, 1936-40: (1917) National-
ist opponent of Mr. De Valera at

654

INDEX

Lynch, Patrick, K.C . — continued
Clare election, 39; {1934) elected to
Senate, 428

Lyons, Rt. Hon. Joseph A., Prime
Minister of Australia, 1932-8:
cablegram to Mr. De Valera re
dispute with British Government,
288; {1937) attends Coronation, 489

Macassey, Sir Lynden, K.C. : on dele-
gated legislation, 527

MacBride, Sedn: an I.R.A. leader, 405

MacCartan, Dr. Patrick, T.D.: {1918)
elected Sinn F6in M.P., 42

McCullough, Denis, T.D.: {1922)
business premises mined by Irregu-
lars, 100

MacDermot, Frank, T.D.: {1932) and
formation of National Centre Party,
11, 298-9; questions Mr. De Valera
on his view of validity of Treaty,
307 ; questions Minister for Defence
on attitude of Fianna Fdil to armed
resistance against State, 316; {1933)
on harm inflicted on Ireland by
Mr. De Valera, 329; on Mr. Rutt-
ledge’s explanation of collection of
licensed firearms, 331 ; Vice-Chair-
man of United Ireland Party, 335,
433; on Tralee outrage, 337; confi-
dential letter regarding, quoted by
Minister for Justice, 338; motion to
reject Bill to reduce Senate’s sus-
pensory power, 351; {1934) on
Wearing of Uniform Bill, 343;
question re joint committee for re-
form of Senate, 368; on lack of
mandate for Local Government
(Extension of Franchise) Bill, 371;
on status of South Africa, 379; on
status of British subject, 450 ; {1935)
obtains statistics of convictions by
Military Tribunal, 434; resignation
from United Ireland Party, 11, 435 ;
and I.R.A. activities in Edgeworths-
town, 436-7; query re declaration
of I.R.A. as unlawful association
and suggestion of Fianna Fdil sym-
pathy with, 437-8 ; query re Com-
mission to consider new Second
Chamber, 457; {1936) inquires
Government’s intentions re Wear-

. ing of Uniform Bill, 362; ditto re
abolition of Senate, 461 ; describes
Mr. De Valera’s promise of new
Constitution as ‘an interesting re-
velation’, 467; requests Commis-
sion on new Second Chamber, 468 ;
speech on. abdication legislation,
484; {1937) proposes amendment
to Draft Constitution declaratory

of Commonwealth membership,
496; not a candidate at general
election, 501; {1938) nominated to
Senate, 572; {1939) motion re
I.R.A. campaign against England,
591

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. Ramsay,
Prime Minister, 1924: {1924) signs -
Agreement re Northern Ireland
member of Boundary Commission,
176

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. Malcolm,
Secretary of State for Dominion
Affairs, 1935-8: {1938) a signatory
of London Agreements, 577

MacEIlin, Sedn E.: {1928) elected to
Senate, 241; {1931) re-elected, 278;
{1936) speech on Senate Abolition
Bill, 461

MacEntee, Sedn, Minister for Fin-
ance, 1932-9: {1929) attack on
Senate, 270; {1932) takes part in
conference on financial dispute,
289; attitude to I.R.A. activities in
economic war, 10, 298, 336; {1932-
6) Senate recommendations to
Money Bills of, 550-2; {1933) atti-
tude to Senate amendment re Civic
Guard economies, 348-9; {1934)
sets up Banking Commission, 583;
{1935) reception of Conversion
Loan in Senate, 454; {1938) a signa-
tory of London Agreements, 577

McGarry, Sedn, T.D.: {1922) house
burnt by Irregulars, death of son
from burns, 100

McGilligan, Patrick, T.D., Minister
for Industry and Commerce, 1924-
32, Minister for External Affairs,
1927-32: {1925) inaugurates Shan-
non hydro-electric scheme, 136;
{1928) and attitude of Fianna Fdil
to apprehension of murderers of
Kevin O’Higgins, 228; {1929) on
Optional Clause, 250-1 ; delegate to
Conference on Operation of Do-
minion legislation, 252; {1930) de-
legate to Imperial Conference, 252;
{1931) moves resolution of approval
of Report of Imperial Conference,
252; {1932) questions Mr. De
Valera re compensation claim
against Great Britain, 290; opposes
Removal of Oath Bill, 310; {1934)
‘flays De Valera’, 407 ; {1936) speaks
on enactment motion, Senate Abo-
lition Bill, 468; speaks on abdica-
tion legislation, 484, 485 ; and vest-
ing of executive authority after
King removed from Constitution,
484

INDEX . 655

McGiliycuddy of the Reeks, The:
(1925) unsuccessful candidate for
Senate panel at triennial election,
154; (1928) elected to Senate, 241,
242; member of Independent
Group, 274; (1929) votes against
Government on Juries Bill, 274;
(1931) re-elected, 278
McGrath, Joseph, T.D., Minister for
Industry and Commerce, 1922-4:
(1924) resignation of, 136, 142; re-
resigns from Ddil, connection with
National Party, 142; (1925) seeks
re-election and is defeated, 142
MacKean, James: (1922) elected to
Senate, 94; (1929) and formation of
Cosgrave Party in Senate, 267;
(1931) re-elected, 278; (1932) sup-
ports Removal of Oath Bill, 315;
(1934) absent at election of Chair-
man, 447

Mackenzie King, Rt. Hon. W. L.,
Prime Minister of Canada since
1935: on ‘dominion status’, 15
MacKeon, General Sedn, T.D.: (1921)
seconds motion of approval of
Treaty, 53; (1935) on threats issued
prior to Edgeworthstown murder,
437

Volunteers, 35; (1916) ignorance of
plans for insurrection and attitude
thereto, 36; (1925) member of
Boundary Commission, 176; resig-
nation from Commission and from
Government, 177; (1927) succours
Kevin O’Higgins at latter’s assas-
sination, 195-6

MacPartlin, John: (1922) elected to
Senate, 94, 95; on Lord Glenavy’s
election to Chair, 117; (1923) death
of, 598

MacRory, Cardinal, Archbishop of
Armagh since 1928: (1933) on mu-
tual love of Irish and English
peoples, 324; (1939) opposition to
conscription in Northern Ireland,
587

MacSwiney, Miss Mary: (1927) a
leader of Sinn F6in, 190

Magennis, Professor William, T.D.:
(1922) motion approving univer-
sity representation in Ddil, 84;
(1925) member of Private Bill Joint
Committee at time of divorce con-
troversy, 164; (1926) formation of
Clann Eireann, 183; (1927) de-
feated at June general election, 193.
See also Clann Eireann

MacLoughlin, John: (1922) elected to
Senate, 94; proposes Lord Glen-
avy’s election to Chair, 117; (1925)
on boundary provisions of Treaty,
178; on Mr. De Valera and parti-
tion, 199; (1931) re-elected, 278;
(1936) tribute to Chairman at final
meeting, 465

MacLysaght, Edward: (1917-18)
member of Irish Convention, 38;
(1922) elected to Senate, 94; (1925)
loses seat, 598

McNamee, Most Rev. Dr., Bishop of
Ardagh: (1935) condemns Edge-
worthstown murder, 437

McNeill, James, Governor-General,
1928-32: (1922) member of Con-
stitution Committee, 69; unsuccess-
ful candidate for Senate, 93; (1928)
appointed Governor-General, 93;
(1932) insults offered to, by mem-
bers of Government, correspon-
dence with Mr. De Valera regard-
ing, 10, 291-4; dismissal of, 294;
(1933) dismissal linked by Mr. De
Valera with that of General O’Duf-
fy, 330

MacNeill, Professor John, T.D.,
Minister for Education, 1922-5:
one of founders of Gaelic League,
33; (1914) welcomes accession of
Irish Nationalist Party to Irish

Maguire, Conor A., K.C., T.D.
(afterwards Hon. Mr. Justice Ma-
guire), Attorney-General, 1932-6,
President of High Court since 1936:
(1932) takes part in conference on
financial dispute, 289; statement on
Removal of Oath Bill, on preven-
tion of judicial misrepresentation,
309, 500; (1933) application to
High Court re League of Youth re-
fused, 338; (1935) non-appearance
before Privy Council, 462; member
of Committee of Privileges, 554;
(1936) Vice-Chairman of Second
Chamber Commission, 490
Mahon, General Sir Bryan: on the
‘German plot’ of 1918, 42; (1922)
nominated to Senate, 90, 91; an
Independent, 268; (1923) house
burnt by Irregulars, 106; (1928) re-
tains seat at triennial election, 241,
242

Massachusetts: Constitution of, 395-7
Mayo, Lord: (1922) nominated to
Senate, 90; (1923) mansion de-
stroyed by Irregulars, 104
Meredith, Hon. Mr. Justice, Judge of
High Court, 1924-36, Judge of
Supreme Court since 1936: (1935)
trial of Edgeworthstown murder
case, 438

Midleton, Lord: (1917-18) member

656

INDEX

Midleton, Lord —continued
of Irish Convention, 75-6; ( 1921-2 )
a representative Southern Unionist,
76; interview with Griffith, 75;
interviews with Griffith and Mr.
Lloyd George, 76; takes part in for-
mal negotiations with Provisional
Government, 76, 78; dissatisfac-
tion with character of Senate, 80-1
Military Tribunals: (1931) set up
under Act of 1931 by Cosgrave
Administration, 261-2, 265; (1932)
suspended by De Valera Adminis-
tration, 295; Mr. De Valera’s
pledge to repeal Act, 9, 334; (1933)
set up by De Valera Administra-
tion, 334; (1933-5) statistics of con-
victions by, 434; (1934) High Court
issues order of prohibition to, 339;
judgement of Supreme Court on
validity of, 311; (1937) provision
for, in new Constitution, 494-5;
(1939) re-established, 592
Mill, John Stuart: reference to, 145;
quoted or referred to by Mr. De
Valera in debates on Senate Aboli-
tion Bill, 373, 387, 468; quoted by
Senator Douglas, 385; views on bi-
cameralism explained, 387
Milroy, Sedn, T.D.: (1924-5) connec-
tion with National Party, seeks re-
election and is defeated, 142; (1928)
elected to Senate, 240, 241 ; (1929)
and formation of Cosgrave Party
in Senate, 267; (1932) opposes Re-
moval of Oath Bill, 312; (1933)
quotes Griffith on Mr. De Valera’s
‘wading through blood’ speeches,
58; (1935) speech on Irish Nation-
ality and Citizenship Bill, 452; on
personnel of Committee of Privi-
leges, 555; (1936) on Mr. De
Valera’s use of Adams, 396; speech
on Canadian Senate, 461
Mirabeau, Comte de: on tyranny of
Single Chambers, 381
Money Amendments: to non-Money
Bills, 149-51

Moore, Colonel Maurice: (1922)
elected to Senate, 94; (1923) de-
struction of ancestral home by Ir-
regulars, 105; (1925) speech in di-
vorce debate, 168; opposes Boun-
dary Agreement, 198; (1926) joins
Clann Eireann, 183; motion re Ul-
timate Financial Settlement, 202;
(1927) supports ministerial repre-
sentation in Senate, 204; opposes
Public Safety Bill, 215; (1928) joins
Fianria F&il, 267; (1928 and 1931)
defeated in election for Vice-Chair,

268; (1931) re-elected, 278; (1932).
supports Removal of Oath Bill,
312; (1934) votes against Senate
Abolition Bill, 389

More O’Ferrall, Richard: (1935) mur-
der of, 437

Morrissey, Daniel, T.D.: (1931) ex-
pelled from Labour Party for vot-
ing for Military Tribunal Bill, 262
Mulcahy, General Richard, T.D.,
Minister for Defence, 1922-4,
Minister for Local Government and
Public Health, 1927-32: (1922)
Minister for Defence in Ddil Cabi-
net, 55; succeeds Collins as Com-
mander-in-Chief, 64; (1923) on
temporary nature of Defence Forces
Act, 124; (1924) resignation of, 142;
supports Senate recommendation
to Finance Bill against Govern-
ment, 551; (1932) cites documents
relating to Civil War, 99; (1936)
query re correspondence with Brit-
ish Government on new Constitu-
tion, 484; (1937) defeated at general
election, 502; (1938) elected to
Senate, 572; on the importance of
a strong Britain, 582; re-elected to
D&il, 582

Munich Crisis, 1938: Irish position
during, 583-4

Murnaghan, James (afterwards Hon.
Mr. Justice Murnaghan), Judge of
High Court, 1924, Judge of Su-
preme Court since 1925: (1922)
member of Constitution Commit-
tee, 69; (1934) judgement on
validity of Military Tribunals, 311
Mutiny: (1924) among Army officers,
141-2

National Centre Party: (1932) forma-
tion and policy of, 11, 299; (1933)
policy at general election, 321 ; free
speech assured to, by Army Com-
rades Association, 322; representa-
tion at general election, 323; far-
mers charged with conspiring to
compel persons to join, 335 ; merged
in United Ireland Party, 11, 335
National Corporate Party: (1935)
founded by General O’Duffy, 435-6
National Guard : see Blue Shirts
National League: (1926) foundation
and policy, 184; abortive negotia-
tions for fusion with Farmers’
Party, 191 ; (1927) policy and repre-
sentation at June general election,
190, 193; and ‘no confidence’ mo-
tion in Ddil, 219-20; representa-
tion at September general election,

INDEX

657

221, 222; members of, abstain from
voting at election for President of
Executive Council, 222
National Party: ( 1924) foundation
and early demise, 142; ( 1926) sup-
port from former members of, for
Clann Fireann, 183
Nationals: statutory definitions of,
452-3

National University: ( 1927-33 ) re-
presentation by political parties,
413; (1938) representation in Se-
nate, 570, 572. See also University
Representation

National Volunteers: (1914) offshoot
of Irish Volunteers, 35
Newfoundland : position under Statute
of Westminster, temporary loss of
Dominion status, 478, 479; (1935)
position under Aliens Act, 454
New South Wales: early adoption of
bicameralism, 392-3; modern Se-
nate modelled on that of Irish Free
State, 517-18

New Zealand: months of parliamen-
tary session in, 560; reference to
ministerial representation in Senate
of, 207; (1932) cablegram of Prime
Minister of, to Mr. De Valera, 288;
reference by Mr. De Valera to legis-
lative freedom of, under Statute of
Westminster, 309; (1935) position
under Aliens Act, 454; (1936) ac-
tion taken by, pursuant to King’s
abdication, 480; reference to, in
Executive Authority (External Re-
lations) Act, 485; (1937) attitude of
Government of, to new Constitu-
tion, 570; (1938) General Mulcahy
on, 582

Northern Ireland: government on a
politico-religious basis, 22-3; cen-
sus by religions, 22; legal and con-
stitutional position as regards citi-
zenship, 452; (1920) statutory crea-
tion of, 44; Senate of, 44-5; (1921)
representation at general election,
45; King’s speech at opening of
Parliament, 45; Ddil not recognized
by Nationalist and Unionist mem-
bers of Parliament of, 49; Griffith’s
request for safeguards for minority
in, 75; (1922) bloodshed on border,
56; (1932) Mr. De Valera states to
British Government ultimate aim
regarding, 288; discrimination
against inhabitants of, 452-3; Na-
tional Centre Party’s policy of
friendliness to, 299; (1934) Mr.
O’Kelly on use of force against,
405; (1937) Mr. MacDermot on

reconciliation with, 496; de facto
position recognized by new Consti-
tution, 492; claim to de jure juris-
diction over, not recognized by
British Government, 570; (1938) re-
sult of general election, 575; (1939)
threat of conscription in, 585-7;
I.R.A. ultimatum to British Gov-
ernment regarding, 590. See also
Boundary Agreement, Boundary
Commission, Craig, Partition, Ul-
ster

Norton, William, T.D.: (1932) leader
of Labour Party, 285; (1935) sup-
ports Senate Abolition Bill, 456;
member of Committee of Privi-
leges, 554; (1938) on transfer of
Treaty ports, 579

Norway: Mr. De Valera on Senate of,
376, 456; Senator Douglas on
Senate of, 385

Oath, parliamentary: see Parliamen-
tary Oath

O’Brien, Most Rev. Dr., Bishop of
Kerry: (1935) warning against
I.R.A., 328

O’Byme, John, K.C. (afterwards
Hon. Mr. Justice O’Byrne), Attor-
ney-General, 1924-6, Judge of
High Court, 1926-40, Judge of
Supreme Court since 1940: (1922)
member of Constitution Commit-
tee, 69, 70; (1924) opinion on con-
stitutional position of Intoxicating
Liquor Bill, 125-6; (1933) grants
order of habeas corpus in General
O’DufFy’s case, 339

O’Connell, Thomas J., T.D.: (1927-
32) leader of Labour Party, 226;
(1929) on Mr. De Valera’s views of
legitimacy of State, 226-7, 257 ; on
extension of period for constitu-
tional amendments without refer-
endum, 273; (1932) defeated at
general election, 285

O’Connor, Rory: (1922) leader of
mutinous section of Army, 58;
seizure of Four Courts, 59; surren-
der of, 63; execution of, with three
other Irregular leaders, 101

O’Doherty, Most Rev. Dr., Bishop of
Galway: (1933) warning against
I.R.A. and communism, stated by
Mr. De Valera to have been misled,
328

O’Donnell, Cardinal, Archbishop of
Armagh, 1924-7: (1917-18) mem-
ber of Irish Convention, 38; (1925)
attack by Senator Yeats on, 167

O’Donnell, Peadar: (1931) oration at

658

INDEX

O’Donnell, Peadar — continued
Wolfe Tone’s grave, 260; (7952) on
extremist support for Fianna Fdil,
284; on policemen and Mr. Cos-
grave, 297; ( 1934) a founder and
member of Executive of Republican
Congress Party, 405
O’Duffy, General Eoin: (1924) Com-
missioner of Civic Guard, ap-
pointed to deal with Army mutiny,
141 ; (1927) at death-bed of Kevin
O’Higgins, confidence of O’Hig-
gins in, 196, 329; (1931) reference
of Republican journal to, 259;
(1933) dismissal from office, 11,
329-30; Director-General of Na-
tional Guard, 330; Mr. De Valera’s
attitude to, 331—2; cancels parade
of National Guard, 333 ; leader of
United Ireland Party, 335; as-
saulted in Tralee, 336-7; domici-
liary visit by police, 338; arrest of,
and release by habeas corpus, 339;
High Court order of prohibition to
Military Tribunal re certain charges
against, 339; (1934) on extension of
local government electorate, 409-
10; resignation from United Ireland
Party, 11, 406-8; (1935) founds
ational Corporate Party, policy
of all-Ireland republic, 435 ; (1936-
7) commands Irish volunteers in
Spanish Civil War, 474-5
Farrell, John T.: (1922) interview
with Mr. De Valera prior to Civil
War, 59; elected to Senate, 94, 95;
(1923) supports amendment to
Public Safety Bill, 127; (1924)
amendment to Courts of Justice
Bill, 151; resists attempt to restrict
Senate’s power over delegated
legislation, 541; (1925) speech in
divorce debate, 168; sequel to atti-
tude in divorce debate, 171; re-
elected, 155; opposes Boundary
Agreement, 198; (1926) on hasty
legislation, 201; (1928) proposes
motion re changes in constitution
and powers of Senate, 231-2; op-
poses abolition of referendum and
altered Senate electoral system, 237 ;
on canvassing for election to Sen-
ate, 238-9; tribute to Lord Glenavy
on retirement, 244; defeated in con-
test for Vice-Chair, 268; (1929) on
ministerial representation in Sen-
ate, 271-2; (1929-30) speeches on
external affairs, 277; (1932) speech
on Removal of Oath Bill, 314-15;
(1933) initiates Slaughter of Ani-
mals Bill, 523; on compensation

and pensions to ex-members of
I.R.A., 348; on Bill to reduce

Senate’s suspensory power, 352;
(1934) sponsors Bill to restore ref-
erendum for constitutional amend-
ments, 410; criticism of Revision of
Constituencies Bill, 417; (1935) on
Fianna Fdil challenge to Chair-

man’s ruling re Land Purchase Bill,
554; (1936) speech on Senate Ab-
olition Bill, votes for motion

thereon, 461 ; speech at final meet-

ing of Senate, 465. Reference to
(payment of members), 518
I’Hanlon, Michael F.: (1925) elected
to Senate, 155; (1927) resigns from
Farmers’ Party, 191; (1928) on
Fianna Fdil attitude to Senate,

237; member of Cosgrave Party,
274; defeated in contest for Vice-
Chair, 269; (1929) votes against
Government on Juries Bill, 274;
(1932) elected Vice-Chairman, 303;
(1933) on Bill to reduce Senate’s
suspensory power, 352; (1934) on
Senate Abolition Bill, 386, 394-5,
398; defeated in contest for Vice-
Chair, 448 ; (1935) elected to Com-
mittee of Privileges, 555
I’Hegarty, P. S.: quoted, 43, 50
I’Higgins, Kevin, T.D., Vice-Presi-
dent of Executive Council, 1922-7,
Minister for Home Affairs, 1922-4,
Minister for Justice, 1924-7, Minis-
ter for External Affairs, 1927:
(1922) member of Ddil Cabinet and
Provisional Government, 55 ; nego-
tiations with British Government re
Draft Constitution, 72; enumerates
Constitution Articles of Treaty
obligation, 72 ; description of agreed
Draft, 73 ; on character of Southern
Unionist negotiators, 75 ; takes part
in formal negotiations with South-
ern Unionists, 76, 78; attitude to
Unionist minority, 77; statements
in Ddil on negotiations, 77, 78; on
character of agreement reached, 78 , r
79, 414, 415; on effect of Civil War'
on post-Treaty negotiations, 81-2;
pilots Constitution Bill through
Ddil, 84-6; ‘no constitutional hy-
brid’ between republic and mon-
archy, 568; on claim that Oath in
Treaty not obligatory, 307-8; on
execution of Irregular leaders, 101;
(1923) murder of father, 100; op-
poses Senate amendments to Pub-
lic Safety Bill, 127, 129; refusal to
tolerate two governments and two
armies, 137; on Mr. De Valera’s

INDEX

peace proposals, 114; in charge of
Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 125;
( 1923-5 ) responsibility for measures
for public safety, 141; ( 1924) on
members of Ddil leading armed
gangs of robbers, 138 ; on ceasing of
bailiff to function, 139; and suspen-
sion of habeas corpus, 140; attempt
to restrict Senate’s power over dele-
gated legislation, 541-2; {1925) on
Mr. De Valera’s policy, 1 42 ; seconds
Ddil motion re divorce legislation,
165; signs Boundary Agreement,
178; objection taken to reading of
letter from, to Senate, 200; ( 1926)
delegate to Imperial Conference,
188; on Mr. De Valera’s campaign
to abolish Oath, 192; protest over
late amendments in Senate, 201;
seeks hasty Senate approval of
Rules of Court, 534; legal view of

demands entry to Ddil without tak-
ing Oath, 194; ( 1928) on activities
of Fianna Fdil members of Joint
Committee on Senate, 233; {1927)
insinuates illegitimacy of State, 8,
224; {1931) opposes motion ap-
proving Report of Imperial Con-
ference, 309; {1932) incident at
French legation, 292; heads delega-
tion to Ottawa Conference, 289;
{1933) on politics in local govern-
ment, 350; {1934) on use of force to
secure all-Ireland republic, 405;
justifies abolition of university re-
presentation, 413; {1936) on Gov-
ernment’s intentions re Senate’s
abolition, 461-2; on partition and
relations with England, 477; {1938)
possible candidate for office of
President, 573; on whipping John
Bull, 581-2

form of approval of District Court 6 Mdille, Padraic, T.D.: {1922) at-

Rules not agreed to by Senate, 535 ;
{1927) in charge of Intoxicating
Liquor Bill, 189; Senate amend-
ment to Liquor Bill carried against,
210; opposes ministerial represen-

tempted assassination of, 100;
{1923) member of Private Bill
Joint Committee at time of divorce
controversy, 164; {1934) elected to
Senate, 428, 429

tation in Senate, 205-8; proposal to 0 Murchadha, Colm, Clerk of the

exempt women from jury service
resisted by Senate, 209; assassina-
tion of, 195-6; tributes in Senate,
State funeral and appreciation, 210-
13; {1928) Fianna Fdil attitude to
apprehension of murderers of, 227-
8; {1928 and 1931) references of

Ddil: {1927) refuses admission of
Fianna Fdil members to Ddil with-
out subscribing Oath, 194; ( 1934)
and non-admission of Blue Shirts
to Senate Strangers’ Gallery, found
to have committed breach of privi-
lege, 356-8

Republican journal to, 259; {1932) O’Neill, Edmond, T.D.: {1934) pre-

ceremony at memorial to, discon-
tinued after change of Govern-

sent at Cork shooting affray, com-
mended by Mr. Justice Hanna, 424

ment, 333; statements of, re Oath, O'Neill, John: {1925) elected to

recalled by Mr. J. H. Thomas, 288;
{1934) Senator Jameson on pro-
mises made by, 41 6

Senate, 598; proposes motion to
rescind resolution re divorce legis-
lation, 169; loses scat, 598

O’Higgins, Dr. Thomas: {1923) mur- O’Neill, Laurence: {1929) elected to
derof 100 Senate, 601; an Independent, rcla-

O’Higgins, Dr. T. F., T.D.: {1932) tions with Fianna Fdil, 268; (/9J/)
leads Army Comrades Association re-elected, 278, 302; {1934) votes
against I.R.A. intimidation, 297; for Senate Abolition Bill, 389; votes
{1933) warning to interrupters in against outgoing Chairman in con-
general election campaign, 321-2; test for Chair, 448
retires from leadership in favour of Optional Clause (Article 36 of Statute
General O’Duffy, 330; ( 1935) Vice- of Permanent Court of Intcrna-
Chairman of United Ireland Party, tional Justice): (/?2?) question of
433- and imposition of sanctions signature raised in Senate, 250;

against Italy, 434-5 ; {1938) on lack {1930) signature without reserva-

of preparedness during Munich tion approved by both Houses, -51,

crisis, 584 _ n : Atfr„rt- tior>\

of Permanent Court of Interna-
tional Justice): {1929) question of
signature raised in Senate, 250;
{1930) signature without reserva-
tion approved by both Houses, 251,
277

O’Kelly, Sedn T., T.D., Vice-Presi- O’Rahilly, Professor Alfred: {1922)
dent of Executive Council, 1 932-7, member of Constitution Commit-

Minister for Local Government and tee, 69, 70 .

Public Health, 1932-9, Deputy O’Rourke, Brian: {1922) elected to
Prime Minister since 1937: {1927) Senate, 94; {1925) supports Boun-

Minister for Local Government and

660

INDEX

O’Rourke, Brian — continued
dary Agreement, 198; {1931) and
Military Tribunal Bill, 274; re-
elected, 278; {1933) on Broy
Harriers, 348

O’Sullivan, Professor John M., T.D.,
Parliamentary Secretary to Minis-
ter for Finance, 1924-6, Minister
for Education, 1926-32: {1935) on
Mr. De Valera’s changes of policy
towards I.R.A., 439; {1936) speaks
on enactment motion, Senate Abo-
lition Bill, 468, 469 ; on hasty nature
of abdication legislation, 482;
query re correspondence with Bri-
tish Government on new Constitu-
tion, 483; speaks on abdication
legislation, 484

O’Sullivan, Dr. William : {1922) elected
to Senate, 94; {1923) residence
looted and burnt by Irregulars,
106; {1929) Chairman of Cosgrave
Party in Senate, 267; {1931) re-
elected, 278

Ottawa Conference, 1932: reason for
early general election, 282; conver-
sations with British Ministers re-
garding, 288; delegation sent to,
but no agreement concluded with
Great Britain, 10, 289

Parliament Act, 1911: abolishes veto
of House of Lords, 32

Parliamentary Oath: text of, 305;
method of administering, 563—4;
{1926) Mr. De Valera’s proposal to
Sinn F6in regarding, 7, 185-7;
{1927) Mr. De Valera’s attitude to-
wards, 8, 192, 216-17; Mr. Cos-
grave on campaign to abolish, 191—
2, 194-5 ; effect of Electoral Amend-
ment Bill on Mr. De Valera’s -atti-
tude, 216, 219; subscribed by
Fianna Fdil, circumstances de-
scribed by Mr. De Valera, 217-18;
( 1928 ) effort to abolish by Initia-
tive, 228-9 ; {1932) alleged in Fianna
Fdil election manifesto not to be
obligatory, 282; Mr. De Valera’s
controversy with British Govern-
ment regarding, 10, 287 ; introduc-
tion of Bill to abolish, 304; man-
date claimed for Bill examined, 303,
306-9; outline of legal and consti-
tutional position, 304-6; debates in
Ddil and Senate, 309-15; {1933)
Bill enacted over head of Senate,
324-5; {1934) Mr. De Valera on
Senate’s rejection of Bill, 370-1

Parliamentary Questions: not per-
mitted in Senate, 121-2

Parliamentary Secretaries: statutory
provisions for, and number of, 203-
4; chosen exclusively from D4il,
120—1 ; no right of audience in
Senate, 121

Partition: effect on Irish political de-
velopment, 5 ; Mr. De Valera’s Irish
language policy an obstacle to end-
ing of, 17, 20; Mr. O’Kelly on Eng-
land and, 477; Mr. De Valera on
type of Senate if ended, 376; Sir
John Griffith on effect of Senate
abolition on, 461 ; Mr. De Valera’s
speeches and policy on, 24-5, 584-
5; suggested solution for problem
of, 25-7. See also Boundary Agree-
ment, Boundary Commission,
Craig, Northern Ireland, Ulster
Pearse, Patrick: and 1916 insurrec-
tion, 36

Pennsylvania: Constitution of 1776
drafted by Franklin, 398; Single
Chamber experiment in, 382; abo-
lition of Single Chamber, 398-402
Pius XI, Pope: {1922) message to first
Governor-General, 67 ; {1937) sends
Papal Legate to Coronation, 489
Plebiscite of 1937: statutory provi-
sions for, 498; result of, 502; per-
centages for and against new Con-
stitution, 16; percentages of total
electorate, 503; percentages on an
all-Ireland basis, 25, 503; ‘external
association’ not an issue at, 14,
486-7

Plunket, Most Rev. and Hon. Dr.,
Protestant Bishop of Meath: {1925)
attacked by Senator Yeats for pro-
nouncement against divorce, 1 67
Plunkett, Count: {1917) elected
abstentionist M.P., 38; candidate
for Presidency of Sinn F6in, 39
Plunkett, Sir Horace: {1917) Chair-
man of Irish Convention, 38 ; {1918)
on Report of Convention, 40;
{1922) nominated to Senate, 90, 91 ;
{1923) house bombed and burnt by
Irregulars, 104; resignation of, 144
Poe, Sir William Hutcheson, Bart.:
{1922) nominated to Senate, 90, 91 ;
robbed by Irregulars and car burnt,
103; {1923) concern for well-being
of internees, 128

Prayer: text of, at Senate meetings,
565

President of Ireland: status and func-
tions under 1937 Constitution, 492,
494; {1938) unopposed election of
Dr. Hyde, 573-4

Price, Michael: ( 1934) a founder of
Republican Congress Party, 405;

INDEX

661

R°Sf°? n 5* / d 7n S ^ sions in Congress Redmond, Major William, M.P.:

Party, 405; {1935) arrest of, 440

Private Bills: procedure outlined,
163 -4

Privy Council: {1933) abolition of
right of appeal to Judicial Com-
mittee of, 13, 326-7; {1935) deci-
sion of Judicial Committee on abo-
lition of right of appeal, 462-3

Progressive Parly (Senate); character
of, 267

Proportional representation: {1912)
for elections to Senate under Gov-
ernment of Ireland Bill, 32; {1922)
Griffith's undertaking to adopt for
elections to Ds5.il, 76, 4i4; elections
to Senate to be by, 79; Figgis criti-
cizes system adopted for Senate,

1 52 ; {1933) policy of United Ireland
Party to abolish present system of,
for Ddil elections, 335; {1935) value
to minorities reduced by Revision
of Constituencies Act, 414, 417-18,
501-2; {1938) Mr. De Valera
blames, for political instability,
581. See also General Elections,
Senate Elections

Provisional Government, Ulster:
{1913) set up in Belfast, 34

Provisional Government, 1922:
machinery for, in Treaty, 49; duly
set up, 55; repudiated by Mr. De
Valera, S8-9

Public Safety Bills: (1923) 126-30;
{1924) 140, 146; (1925) 189; ( 1927)

(1917) killed in action, 39
Redmond, Captain William Archer,
T.D. : (1918) elected M.P. for Water-
ford, 40; re-elected at general elec-
tion, 43; ( 1926) an Independent,
founds National League, 182, 184;
(1927) and *no confidence' motion
in Ddil, 219-20; (1932) joins Cos-
grave Party, 284. See a/so National
League

Referendum: (1922) provision for, in
Drafts of Constitution Committee,
71; provision in Agreement with
Southern Unionists, 79; provision
in Constitution, 88; implications of
Article 47 of Constitution, 130;
(1927) attempted application of, to
Electoral Amendment Bill, 219;
(1928) deleted from Constitution,
228-30; (1929) effect of amend-
ment of Article 50 on, 230, 273;
(1934) Senate Bill to restore, for
constitutional amendments, 410-
11, 522; ( 1937) provision for, in
new Constitution, 493-4; result of,
on new Constitution, see Plebiscite
Republican Congress Party: (1934)
foundation of, and split in, 405;
clash with I.R.A. at Wolfe Tone’s
grave, 405; (1935) ditto, 441 ; arrest
of members of, 440
Rice, Vincent, K.C., T.D.: (1927) and
‘no confidence’ motion in Ddil,
219-20

214-15, 255. See also Military Tri- Robinson, David L.: (1931) elected to

Senate, 278; (1935) and Land Pur-
chase Bill, 556; (1936) elected Vice-
Chairman, 448; speaks to motion
for disposal of Casket at final meet-
ing, 465

Rowlette, Dr. Robert J., T.D.: (1936)
speaks on enactment motion, Sen-
ate Abolition Bill, 468; (1937) criti-
cism of new Constitution, 495;
(1938) elected to Senate, 572

buna/s

Queensland: early adoption of bi-
cameralism, 393
Queenstown : see Cove
Quirke, William: (1931) elected to
Senate, 278; (1933) attack on Sir
John Keane, 334; (1936) explana-
tion of Mr. De Valera’s absence
from Senate, 4S9-60; quotes letters

by Griffith re Southern Unionists, Royal Irish Constabulary: 0920) re-
74 inforced by Black and Tans, 44;

(1922) members of, shot, 264. Irish
Free State liability for pensions to,
under Agreements of 1923 and
1926, 287; (1932) Fianna Fdil elec-
tion manifesto re pensions of, 283.
Pensions granted to certain ex-
members of, under Acts of 1923
and 1929, 540

Redmond, John, M.P.: Chairman of
Irish Parliamentary Party, 32; atti-
tude to minority, 74; (1914) obtains
control of Irish Volunteers, 35;
attitude at outbreak of Great War,
reaction of founders of Volunteers,
35; request for Irish Division re-

fused by War Office, 35-6; (1916) Rules of Court: 533-7
loses ground after insurrection, 38; Russell, George (AE). (79 '

(1917) attitude to Irish Convention, member oflnsh Convention, 38
38; (1918) death of, aud apprecia- Russell, Sedn: (79J2) oration at
tion 40 Wolfe Tone’s grave, 296

662

INDEX

Ruttledge, Patrick J., T.D., Minister
for Lands and Fisheries, 1932-3,
Minister for Justice, 1933-9: ( 1922 -
5) ‘Vice-President of Republic’,
185; {1922) signs proclamation ‘re-
scinding’ resolution of approval of
Treaty, 67; {1923) unsuccessful at-
tempt to wreck National Loan,
137; {1928) member of Joint Com-
mittee on Senate’s powers, 233;
{1931) description of Military Tri-
bunal Bill, 334; {1933) attack on
Senate, 380-1; admits importation
of arms by I.R.A., 328; explana-
tion of collection of licensed fire-
arms, 331; no objection to man-
oeuvres without arms, 333; allega-
tions against National Guard, 334;
justifies raids on homes of members
of Opposition, 338; on Bill to re-
duce Senate’s suspensory power,
352-4; {1934) on Dundalk bombing
outrage, 341-2; Senate speech on
Wearing of Uniform Bill, 360 ; justi-
fies Cork shooting by armed police,
419-20; {1935) stated to be heavily
guarded, 441 ; {1936) condemns
murder of Admiral Somerville, 443 ;
states Government’s intentions re
Wearing of Uniform Bill, 362;
{1937) on reduced salary paid to
Governor-General, 490; {1939)

quotes I.R.A. proclamations in
Ddil, 589; on I.R.A. campaign
against England, 591

Ryan, Frank: {1931) interview with,
in London newspaper, 260-1 ;
{1932) ‘no free speech for traitors’,
297 ; {1934) elected to Executive of
Republican Congress Party, 405;
{1936-7) participation in Spanish
Civil War, 475; {1937) defeated at
general election, 501

Ryan, Very Rev. Monsignor, Dean of
Cashel: {1927) opinion on Oath
controverted by Mr. De Valera,
192

Ryan, Dr. James, Minister for Agri-
culture since 1932: {1933) action re
Agricultural Produce Bill, 346-7;
cordial relations with Senate, 347;
{1938) a signatory of London
Agreements, 577

Saor Eire (Republican Communist
Organization): {1931) condemned
by joint pastoral of Hierarchy, 264;
declared an unlawful association,
265

Second Chamber Commission, 1936:

appointment, personnel, and Re-
port of, 369, 490-1

Senate: {1912) proposed under Gov-
ernment of Ireland Bill, 32-3;
{1918) proposed by Irish Conven-
tion, 40-1 ; {1920) created for
Northern Ireland and Southern
Ireland, 44-5; {1922) proposed by
Constitution Committee, 70-1 ; ne-
gotiations and agreement with
Southern Unionists regarding, 73-
82; provisions for, in Constitution,
84—9; {1937) provisions in new
Constitution, 493, 570-1. Strength
of parties: {1928) 268; {1931) 302;
{1934) 447. See also Casual Vacan-
cies, Constitutional Amendments, •
Senate Abolition Bill, Senate Elec-
tions

Senate Abolition Bill: introduction,
362; examination, 366; passage by
Ddil, 366-79; rejection by Senate,
379-89; Ddil motion to send Bill a
second time to Senate, 455-8; mo-
tion in Senate, 458-61; enactment
motion in Ddil, 466-9

Senate Elections: {1922) 92-4; {1925)
151-6; {1928) 239-43; {1931) 277-
8; {1934) 427-9; {1938) 571-2, 583

Sessions: position regarding parlia-
mentary, 560-3

Sieyfes, Abb6: on Second Chambers,
372, 377, 381

Sigerson, Dr. George: {1922) nomi-
nated to Senate, 90; {1923) threat of
arson against, 106; {1925) death of,
598

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John, Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs, 1931—

5, Chancellor of the Exchequer,
1937-40 (afterwards Lord Simon):
{1932) takes part in conference re
financial dispute, 289; {1938) a sig-
natory of London Agreements, 577

Simonstown: {1922) British-South
African Agreement regarding, 580

Sinn Fein: {1905) founded by Griffith,
34; {1917) attitude to Irish Con-
vention, 38; by-election successes,
39; Mr. De Valera elected President
of, 39; {1918) by-election defeats,
40; opposition to conscription, 42;
‘suppression’ of, 42; victory at
general election, 43 ; change of
policy thereafter, 44; {1920) oppo-
sition to partition, 45 ; {1921) repre-
sentation at general elections, 45,
49-50; {1923) name taken by anti-
Treaty party, 132; representation
at general election, 133; {1925) re-
presentation at miniature general

INDEX

663

election, 142; position at end of
. year, 181; (1926) rejects Mr. De
Valera’s proposal to recognize
Ddil if Oath removed, 7, 185-7;
(1927) policy at June general elec-
tion, 190; reception of I.R.A. pro-
posals for conference, 190-1; re-
presentation at general election,
193; abstentionist policy of, coun-
tered by Electoral Amendment
Bill, 215; does not contest Septem-
ber general election, 220
Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E., K.C.
(afterwards Lord Birkenhead):
(1913-14) foments armed opposi-
tion to Government of Ireland
Bill, 34; ( 1916) conducts prosecu-
tion for treason against Casement,
37; (1922) speech on ‘economy of

HT « ml irli It, .nr’ minAit/ttnJ L...

sonnel with that of Daii, 49-50;
(1922) Treaty ratified by House of
Commons of, 49, 55; (1938) offen-
sive use of term by Lord Craig-
avon, 576

Southern Unionists: (1920) opposi-
tion to partition, 45; (1921-2) cha-
racter of, 74, 75; Griffith’s attitude
to, 74, 76-7; O’Higgins on, 77; ne-
gotiations with spokesmen of, 74-
8; Heads of Agreement, 78-80;
dissatisfaction of negotiators with
type of Senate, 80-1; (1934)
breaches of agreement with, 364.
Attitude of Fianna Fail to, 221,
232, 284, 379, 384, 415. In Senate:
general appreciation, 7; attitude to
Land Bill of 1923, 124-5; indif-
ferent attendance of some mem-
bers, 514-15

English lives’, later misquoted by
Mr. De Valera, 263-4. On boun- Spanish Civil War: Irish participa-
dary provisions of Treaty, 177 tion in, on both sides, 474—5 ;

Smuts, General Rt. Hon. J. C., Prime passage of Non-Intervention Act,
Minister of South Africa, 1919-24: 475

and King’s speech at opening of Stack, Austin, T.D.: (1921) Minister

Northern Ireland Parliament, 45
‘Soldier’s Song’: origin as national
anthem, 36

Somerville, Vice-Admiral: (1936)
murder of, 442-4

for Home Affairs in Ddil Cabinet,
opposes Treaty, 50; (1923) ‘Minis-
ter for Finance’ in Republican
‘Cabinet’, capture of, in Civil War,
111

South Africa: months of parliamen- Statute of Westminster, 1931 : enact-

taiy session in, 560; versional dis-
crepancies in Bills, 564; method of
enumerating Parliaments, 564; re-
ferences to Status of the Union
Act, 480, 492; other references to
status, 72, 379; Senate of, 120;
ministerial representation in Sen-
ate, 206; statistics of work done by
Senate, 382-3; provision for remo-
val of deadlock, 78; Simonstown
Agreement, 580; (1932) cablegram
of Prime Minister of, to Mr. De
Valera, 288; reference by Mr. De
Valera to legislative freedom of,
under Statute of Westminster, 313;

ment of, main provisions and re-
sults, 253-5; other references to, 9,
224, 282; reliance by Mr. De
Valera on, in debate on Removal of
Oath Bill, 308-9; amendments to
Constitution in accordance with,
326, 448; and extra-territoriality of
laws, 448; preamble cited by Sena-
tor Brown, 450, 451 ; Judicial Com-
mittee on exercise by Irish Free
State of power under, 463; provi-
sions of, relevant to King’s abdica-
tion, 478-9; incorporation of part
of, in South African Status of the
Union Act, 480

Senator Connolly on the people of, Sullivan, Hon. Chief Justice, Pmsi-

314; (1935) position under Aliens
Act, 454; (1936) action taken by,
pursuant to King’s abdication, 480;
reference to, in Executive Au-
thority (External Relations) Act,
485; (1937) attitude of Government
of, to new Constitution, 570; (1938)
General Mulcahy on, 582

South Australia: early adoption of
bicameralism, 393

Southern Ireland: (1920) statutory

dent of High Court, 1924-36, Chief
Justice since 1936: (1928) trial of
I.R.A. prisoner, 256
Supreme Court: (1924) established
under Courts of Justice Act, 150,
532-3; (1934) judgement on va-
lidity of Military Tribunal Act, 311,
463, 500; (1937) dismisses appeal
against High Court judgement in
Cork shooting case, 427. Rules of,
534-5. See also Judiciary

creation of, 44; (1921) representa- . , , . . .

tion at general election, 45; virtual Tasmania: early adoption of bi-
identity of House of Commons per- cameralism, 393

664

INDEX

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H., Secretary of
State for Dominion Affairs, 1930—
5 : (1932) correspondence with Mr.
De Valera re Oath and Land Annui-
ties, 287; announces that removal
of Oath regarded as breach of
Treaty, 288; discussions in Dublin
and London, 288-9; further con-
ference in London, 289-90; (1933)
on result of gradual elimination of
Crown from Constitution, 326; re-
ply to Mr. De Valera’s query re
consequences of secession, 326; de-
cision to withhold Land Annuities
intimated to, 327

Thrift, Professor William, T.D. (after-
wards Provost of Trinity College):
(1922) views on university repre-
sentation, 85; (1928) action with
regard to attempted use of Initia-
tive to abolish Oath, 228 ; sponsors
Bill to reduce allowance to Sena-
tors, 510, 512; (1934) on abolition
of university representation, 415;
(1935) on demand for Committee
of Privileges, 555

Tierney, Professor Michael: (1938)
elected to Senate, 572; elected
Vice-Chairman, 572; (1939) mo-
tion re I.R.A. campaign against
England, 591

Toal, Thomas: (1925) elected to
Senate, 155; opposes Boundary
Agreement, 198

Treaty of 1921: see Anglo-Irish
Treaty

Treaty Ports: (1921) provision in
Treaty, 47; (1931) reference to, by
Republican leader, 261 ; (1932 and
1936) Mr. De Valera on, 287, 476;
(1938) transfer of, 577, 579-8

Triennial Elections (Senate): see
Senate Elections

Twomey, Maurice: (1932) ‘Chief of
Staff’ of I.R.A., on policy, 295 ; in-
spection at Wolfe Tone’s grave,
296; (1934) position after split, pro-
claims capitalism the real enemy,
405-6; (1936) arrest and sentence,
444

Ulster Covenant, 1912: 34

Ulster, North-East: (1910) number of
Unionists returned at December
general election, 32; (1917) Mr. De
Valera’s threat to coerce, 39, 177;
represented on Irish Convention,
38 ; (1918) hostility of Unionist re-
presentatives of, to recommenda-
tions of Convention, 2, 40; number
of Unionists returned at general

election, '43 j (1920) partitioned, 44;
reason for partitioning six Ulster
counties instead of nine, 23. See
also Boundary Agreement, Boun-
dary Commission, Craig, Partition,
Northern Ireland

Ulster Volunteers: (1912) formed to
offer armed opposition to Govern-
ment of Ireland Bill, 34; (1914)
gun-running at Larne, 34; Red-
mond’s offer of co-operation with,
35

Ultimate Financial Settlement, 1926:
motion in Senate regarding, 201-3;
Land Annuities paid pursuant to,
286-7; repudiated by Mr. De
Valera, 289—90; superseded by
Agreement of 1938, 578

Unionists: see Ulster, North-East and
Southern Unionists

United Ireland Party: D&il and
general : (1933) formation of, 11,
335; statement of policy, 335; out-
rages against, 336-7; offices and
homes of members raided by police,
338; (1934) outrages against, 340-
1, 342-3, 406; resignation of
General O’Duffy, 406-8; (1935)
Mr. Cosgrave elected chairman,
433; attitude to sanctions against
Italy, resignation of Mr. MacDer-
mot, 435; demands Committee of
Privileges on Land Purchase Bill,
554; (1936) attitude to Second
Chamber Commission, 490; resig-
nation of Commandant Cronin,
473-4; vote for Executive Au-
thority (External Relations) Bill,
486; (1937) oppose Spanish Non-
Intervention Bill, 475; refuse co-
operation over Constitution Bill,
496, 500; do not support Common-
wealth amendment to Constitution
Bill, 496-7; representation at gen-
eral election, 501, 502; (1938) re-
presentation at general election,
582. Senate : (1934) amendment to
Defence Forces Bill, 359; vote
against Wearing of Uniform Bill,
362; vote against Senate Abolition
Bill, 389; amendment to Revision
of Constituencies Bill, 417; repre-
sentation at triennial election, 428;
party strength, 447 ; voting in con-
test for Chair, 448; (7935) support
sanctions against Italy, 455

United States of America: envoys
sent to, prior to 1916 insurrection,
36; Committee for Relief in Ireland
during Anglo-Irish War, 69; Irish
Free State diplomatic representa-

INDEX 665

tion m t 188, 251; attack on, by
Senator Connolly, 250; Mr. De
Valera on Senate of, 375-6; Single
' Chamber experiments in, 382; Irish
Republican dissensions in, 441;
General Mulcahy on, 582; Mr, De
Valera a citizen of, 38; Mr, De
Valera’s visits to, (1919-20) 43,
(1927) 190, (1930) 477; proposed
visit in 1939 postponed, 586. See
also under names of States: Georgia,
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ver-
mont, Virginia; and under sur-
names: Adams, Franklin, Jefferson,
Lincoln

University representation: (1922)
agreement with Southern Union-
ists for, in Senate, 79; transferred
to Ddil, 84-5; (1936) abolished,
412-17; (1937) in Senate, under
new Constitution, 493, 570. See
also Dublin University, National
University

Vermont: single chamber experi-
ment in, 382

Victoria, State of: early adoption of
bicameralism, 393

Vincent, Arthur R.: (1931) elected to
Senate, 601; re-elected, 278; mem-
ber of Independent Group, 299;
(1932) opposes Removal of Oath
Bill, 312; advocates united consti-
tutional party, 299

Virginia: Jefferson on Constitution
•for, 378 ; Adams’s ideas reflected in
Constitution of, 395

Volunteer Force: (1934) formation of,
commissions given to ex-members
of I.R.A., 358; attitude of Senate
to, 358-9, 411; hostility of I.R.A.
to, 404; Mr. O’Kelly on, 405

Volunteers: see Irish Volunteers, Na-
tional Volun teers, Ulster Volunteers

Walsh, James J., T.D., Postmaster
General, 1922-4, Minister for Posts
and Telegraphs, 1924-7: (1922-7)
an Extern Minister, 89; (1927)
views on tariffs, ceases to be mem-
ber of Ddil, 183-4

Ward, Dr. F. C., T.D., Parliamentary
Secretary to Minister for Local
Government and Public Health
since 1932: (1937) on possibility of
bloodshed if Fianna Fdii impeded
in national progress, 501 . .

Wearing of Uniform (Restriction)
Bill, 1934: introduced in Ddil, 12,
343; its purport and passage under
guillotine, 343-4: debate in Senate

and rejection, 360-2; never enacted,
362; Mr. De Valera on Senate’s re-
jection of, 370

Webster, Sir Lonsdale, Clerk of House
of Commons, 1921-31 : opinion on
procedure conveyed to Senate, 535

Westropp Bennett, T. W.: (1922)
elected to Senate, 94; (1923) re-
elected, 155; elected Vice-Chair-
man, 197; (1926) amendment to
motion re Ultimate Financial
Settlement, 202; (1927) tribute to
Kevin O’Higgins, 212-13;(I928) on
changes in Senate electoral system,
238; tribute to Lord Glenavy on
retirement, 243-4; elected Chair-
man, 268 ; (1931) action re Military
Tribunal Bill, 275; re-elected Chair-
man, 303; (1932) conduct of debate
on Removal of Oath Bill, 315;
facilitates Government re Emer-
gency Imposition of Duties Bill,
316-17; (1933) licensed firearm col-
lected from, 330; (1934) and non-
admission of Blue Shirts to Senate
Strangers’ Gallery, 355-7; rulings
on amendments to Defence Forces
Bills, 358, 41 1 ; speech in defence of
Senate, 380-4; on inadequacy of
Fianna Fdil Senators for work of
revision, 276-7; attack by Mr. De
Valera on, 388; ruling on motion re
Cork shooting affray, 419; re-
elected, 428; re-elected Chairman
by casting vote, 448; (1935) gives
casting vote in favour of Govern-
ment on Revision of Constituen-
cies Bill, 418; ruling on Land Pur-
chase Bill, 552-3; ruling impugned
by Mr. De Valera, challenged by
Fianna Fdil and upheld by Com-
mittee on Procedure, 553-4; (1936)
gives casting vote in favour of re-
commendations to Land Purchase
Bill, 557; reads message from King
Edward VIII, 436; and Mr. De
Valera’s absence from debate on
Senate Abolition Bill, 459-60; tri-
bute to, at final meeting, 465;
speech at final meeting, 466
Wicklow, Lord: (1922) nominated to
Senate, 90: (1923)' and Senate
prayer, 565; (1928) loses seat, 240
Wilson, Richard: (1928) elected to
Senate, 241; (1928-31) competence
in revision of Bills, 276; (1931) and
Military Tribunal Bill, 274; (1934)
amendment to Revision of Con-
stituencies Bill, 417; motion re
Cork shooting affray, 419; re-
elected, 428

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Irish Free State And Its Senate A Study In Contemporary Politics"

See other formats